Commons Sitting of 13 May 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MARGATE COAL DUES BILL.
  Order for Third Reading, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. R. WEBSTER: I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but on looking through the Bill I perceive that it confirms the system of levying modified coal dues in the town of Margate, until the year 1920. The Corporation of Margate have apparently no new fangled method of raising money to propose for carrying out the town improvements, but prefer to rely upon the old system of raising money by means of the coal dues. I find that in the United Kingdom there are no less than 200 other towns and ports which also impose these

  1841
  coal dues, and I maintain that it is an extremely bad system of taxation to resort to. It is a tax which falls upon the consumer, the producer, and the middleman, and is only borne to a very modified extent by the inhabitants of a town generally. It is acceptable to owners of property who know that their land is not taxed, and to occupiers who do not have to pay an increased rent in consequence, and therefore it is a tax which is acceptable to the inhabitants generally. I know that I am precluded by the Rules of this House from referring to another part of the United Kingdom, but I may say that while by this Bill the town of Margate will crystallize the system of imposing coal dues until the year 19·20, this great metropolis has never yet been afforded the privilege of discussing in any form or shape whether in London the coal and wine dues are to be renewed. I know, Sir, that if I were to go further you would rule me out of order. Therefore all I will say is that if the town of Margate is to have the privilege of levying these dues, the inhabitants of London are fairly entitled to equal treatment.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill road the third time, and passed.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading, read.
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, with respect to an Amendment to the Wexford Provisional Order.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to- morrow.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON, &c.) BILL [LORDS.]
  Read a second time, and committed.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Orders Con-
  1842
  firmation Bill (No. 3)."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to he upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.190.]

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Ordered—
  Account of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1889:
  And, Return of the number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1883 to 1888, both years inclusive, together with a Statement of the Progress made in the Arrangement and Description of the Collections, and an Account of Objects added to them, in the year 1888.—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

  REVISING BARRISTERS.
  Address for—
  Return, showing the Circuits, including the county of Middlesex and the cities of London and Westminster, within which the several Revising Barristers and additional Revising Barristers, if any, were appointed to revise the Lists of Parliamentary Electors, Burgesses, and County Electors in England and Wales in the year 1888; the names of the Barristers appointed for each Circuit; the places where each Barrister sat; the Electoral Areas, whether Counties, Boroughs, or Divisions of Counties or Boroughs, included in each Circuit; the total number of Voters in each group of Areas included in a Circuit; the number of Days actually occupied by each Barrister in the Revision:
  And, the total Cost incurred for the payment of such Revising Barristers and the Amount received by the Treasury from the Local Authorities in respect of such Costs:
  Names of Circuits.
  Names of Revising Barristers.
  Places at which each Barrister sat.
  Electoral Areas in each Circuit,
  Number of Electors in each Circuit.
  Number of Days actually occupied in revision.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Cost of Revising Barristers

  Cost of additional Revising Barristers

  Total

  £

  Amount received by Treasury from Local Authorities in respect of such costs

  £

  —(Mr. Stansfeld.)

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—THE ANTRIM POOR LAW UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the yearly

  1843
  emoluments of the clerk of the Antrim Poor Law Union, in addition to his formal salary as clerk, amount to £182; as returning officer, £10 per annum; sanitary officer, £10 per annum; clerk to Local Authority, £15 per annum; clerk to Burial Board, £10 per annum; Jurors' Act, £47 per annum; Parliamentary Voters' Act, £60 per annum, registration of births, £10 per annum; Income Tax Returns, £10 per annum; fees for copy of register, 2s. 6d. each, £10 per annum; whether the Guardians proposed to give in addition £40 of formal salary as clerk: whether the Local Government Board refused to ratify the said proposal; if so, on what grounds; under what Act of Parliament have the Local Government Board power to force Guardians to give a higher salary than they consider reasonable, taking all circumstances into account; and, can the Guardians, when making a new appointment, do so subject to the condition that the appointment is one from year to year, so that no vested interest will be created?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said the facts appeared to be substantially as stated in the question.

  SALMON NETS.
  Mr. MACINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate whether nets placed on the sea coasts of Scotland, or in estuaries, for the purpose of taking salmon, are subject to the law or custom of Saturday "slap" in Scottish Rivers, and liable to confiscation or penalty, if kept set over Sundays; whether he is aware that salmon nets on the coasts of the Islands of Skye and Raasay, are never closed during the fishing season; whether he is aware that this practice, involving constant Sunday labour, within view of those attending Divine Service, is a just cause of offence to the people; and, whether means can be taken to put an end to -the desecration?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON, Buteshire): The Statutory salp and the relative penalties are expressed by the Statutes as applying to the several districts to be constituted by the Commissioners. It so happens that Raasay is not comprehended within any district, and it is maintained that in consequence the Statutory slap does not
  1844
  apply, and the nets are not lifted. I am informed that this does not necessarily involve touching the nets on Sunday. If, however, offence is caused to the feelings of anyone, he has a remedy by trying the question under the 28th Section of the Act of 1862, which gives the right of prosecution to the Clerk of the District Board, or to any other person. Skye is included in a district, and the weekly time close time therefore applies.

  PENSIONERS IN INDIA.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table a Statement showing the number of pensioners, retired members of the Uncovenanted Service in India, whose pensions were paid in England prior to the year 1864; the names of pensioners so paid, and the Presidencies to which they belonged.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): If the hon. Member will confer with me, I will settle with him the form in which the Return he asks for can be given.

  BURIAL GROUNDS.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware the Bishop of Wakefield has informed the Burial Board of Kirkheaton, Yorkshire, that, after consulting the Archbishop of York and other Bishops, he is prepared to dedicate their burial ground, as requested, by using the Consecration Service without the execution of a legal instrument, provided that the Home Office Order for Consecration is cancelled, that the rector is a consenting party, and that an agreement is come to as to the clerical fees; and, whether he will consent to cancel such order, or, if unable, on legal grounds, to do so, the Government will facilitate legislation which will permit the substitution for consecration of a dedication service, the principle of which the Archbishop of York and other Bishops have accepted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. By the Burial Acts a portion of the ground is required to be con-

  1845
  secrated, but the Acts do not require that an order to consecrate should be made by the Home Office, and no such order has been made in this case. All I have done is to call the attention of the Board to the requirements of the Acts, which I have no power to modify by substituting dedication for consecration. I understand, moreover, that in this particular case the vendor of the site stipulated that a portion should be consecrated. The Government are not prepared without more consideration to propose or facilitate any alteration of the existing law.

  CLELAND WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORDasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that an application under the Public Health Act, by Thomas Gibb and others, for the formation of a water supply district at Cleland, has been pending for about six years; whether a petition for the rectification of the proposed boundaries was presented to the Sheriff in May, 1887, and the Sheriff remitted to an architect to report on this question on 3rd October, 1887; whether the report was not lodged till 13th December, 1888; whether, on 12th January, 1889, he made au order permitting written objections to be lodged to the report within eight days, but no objections have been lodged; whether the Sheriff has given no decision; and whether, if these facts be correct, he will inquire who is to blame for such extreme delay in a matter affecting public health, and consider whether the law requires amendment?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The facts as stated by the hon. Member are substantially correct. Some necessary delay was occasioned in the initial stages of the inquiry by a difficulty regarding the boundaries. I am informed that the Sheriff Substitute of the district has been suffering from illness lately which may account for the delay in his pronouncing any decision, but I hope the matter will now be decided as soon as possible. As at present informed, I do not see any necessity for amending the existing law.

  IRELAND-RETIRING ALLOWANCES TO ASYLUM OFFICIALS.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  1846
  tenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial signed by the officers and attendants of the various asylums for the care and treatment of the insane in Ireland, praying that an Act, similar to the English Asylums Act (25 and 26 Vic. c. 3, s. 12) be passed to provide retiring allowances to Irish officials; and whether, as such a measure passed the House of Commons, unopposed in 1887 with the approval of the Government, be will give favourable consideration to the memorial, and introduce a Bill to remove the anomaly at present existing in regard to a very deserving class of public servants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have seen the memorial alluded to by my hon. Friend, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hopes of our introducing a Bill dealing with the question.

  MR. THOMAS BARRY.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lori. Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., Mallow Union, was assulted by a policeman at Kanturk Railway Station on the 4th instant, who dragged him violently from a railway carriage, and wrenched his arm; why did the head constable, who was present, refuse to give the name of the constable; and is it a fact that when Mr. Barry again demanded the name of the offending constable at Banteer Station, he was threatened with violence, and filthy expressions used towards him by the constable in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the constabulary report received it appears that no assault was committed on Mr. Barry, and that the occurrence arose out of an attempt on his part to prevent two constables from entering the railway carriage. The head constable states that he did not refuse to give the constable's name; but as the constable had done nothing wrong, so far as he had seen, he asked Mr. Barry what he wanted the name for. The train at once moved off, and the matter ended there. The constable denies the allegation in the question that Mr. Barry asked his name at Banteer, or that he threatened Mr. Barry with violence or used filthy expressions. But he adds that Mr. Barry was most offensive towards him.
  MR. FLYNN: Have the Constabulary Authorities instructed the head constable in view of legal proceedings to give the constable's name to Mr. Barry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable to say.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Am I to understand that the head constable did not give the name?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of fact, I understand the name was not given.
  MR. FLYNN: Are the Constabulary Authorities aware that Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., Mallow Union, is constantly followed by policemen, whether on his private or public business, and is prevented from transacting his private affairs by the constant proximity of these constables? Are these constables authorized by their instructions to interfere with Mr. Barry by thrusting themselves between him and persons with whom he may be engaged in conversation; and, why is this gentleman exposed to such treatment?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the local police have reason to believe that Mr. Barry is engaged in the unlawful practice of endeavouring to prevent the sale of cattle in connection with evicted farms, and also that he had been named by Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., as a proper agent in organizing on the Kenmare estate the illegal association known as the Plan of Campaign. The police have, therefore, in the discharge of their duty watched his movements. They deny that they have prevented him from transacting his legitimate private affairs.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask whether in this case instructions will at any rate be given to the Constabulary not to interfere with Mr. Barry, when in the discharge of his own private business?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They deny that they have in any way interfered with him in such a case.

  POLICE HUT AT KILLABRAKER.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether a police hut has been recently erected at Killabraker, near Charleville, and how many police constables are stationed in it; on what fund or what district will the cost of the
  1848
  maintenance of these extra policeman fall; what is the reason alleged by the Police Authorities for placing this police post in the neighbourhood; and, is he aware that this district has been exceptionally quiet and free from outrage or disturbance for some years?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the police hut mentioned has recently been established. One sergeant and four constables are stationed in it. The men form part of the general extra force of the county at large. The hut has been established to protect a man whose house was recently attacked by night for his having taken ground on an evicted farm. In addition to the outrage mentioned there were two others in February last, and the place being very remote, and commanding a large district of country, the responsible officers have deemed it advisable to place a hut there.

  TREATMENT OF EMIGRANTS AT BUENOS AYRES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of John Callanan, late of Cork, one of the emigrants from Ireland recently landed at Buenos Ayres, who towards the end of March last called on the British Consul there and complained that his wife had been forcibly detained in a house in that city; that he (Callanan) had been denied access to her; and that, on going to the house, he had been savagely assaulted; whether complaints have reached him that the British Consul refused to take any action, and used abusive language to Callanan; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGINSON,): I have inquired of Mr. Bridgett, H.M. Consul at Buenos Ayres, who happens to be in London, having left his post on the 1st of April. He tells me that he never heard of such a case as that described in the hon. Member's question, and that if he had he would have advised the man what to do and would not have abused him. I may add that I have seen a paragraph in a Limerick newspaper, in which the kindness of Mr. Bridgett to certain emigrants from that

  1849
  city to the Argentine Republic is gratefully acknowledged.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. T. Healy,
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that inquiries should be made about the case.

  POSTAL TELEGRAMS.
  MR. RANKINasked the Postmaster General whether it would be possible to make arrangements with the railway companies so that postal or private telegrams could be sent from and received at the railway stations where no other telegraph station exists?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES,): On the 4th May of last year I stated in this House, in reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for the Chester-le-Street Division of Durham, that there were nearly 1,600 railway stations open for the transaction of telegraph business on behalf of the Post Office. I may add that arrangements are continually being made with the railway companies to open additional stations for telegraph business, where there are the necessary facilities for transacting it, and I shall always be glad as opportunity offers to communicate with the companies in regard to any reasonable application for such facilities.

  THE ZAMBESI RIVER.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure the Report on the navigability of the Zambesi River being presented to Parliament before the middle of next August.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): As the surveying vessel, the Stork, which has been directed to make an mination of the mouth of the Zambesi, recently reported to afford a good entrance into the river, cannot be on the ground until the end of July, it will be impossible for any report to reach England at the time mentioned in the hon. Baronet's question. Moreover, the Stork will only be able to survey the bar of the river. Any survey inland as to the navigability of the Zambesi could only be undertaken by a vessel specially equipped for the purpose.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Could not the Admiralty send orders by telegraph? The amount of water on the bar is the principal thing we want to know.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have already said that the Surveyor has been directed to inspect the mouth of the Zambesi on his way back to Zanzibar.
  DR. CAMERON: May I ask the noble Lord whether, considering the critical position of missionaries at Nyassaland, whose lives so much depend on the navigability of the Zambesi, he cannot take steps to accelerate action in the matter of the survey?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: There is very little connection between the safety of missionaries and the navigability of the Zambesi. But everything possible is being done to expedite the survey, especially of the bar. It is very doubtful whether the reports which have reached this country concerning the supposed channel are accurate.

  ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINE CABLES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which led to the acquisition by the Governments concerned of the submarine cables between England and the Continent, and also the correspondence and documents relating to the fixing of the rate of twopence per word for messages transmitted between England and France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the correspondence to which he refers has been regarded as confidential not only by this country, but also by the other countries concerned; and I may add that it would be contrary to the public interest to lay it upon the Table of the House.

  ANNEXATION OF THE SUWAREW ISLANDS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a Reuter's telegram, dated Sydney, 9th May, to the effect that the commander of Her Majesty's Cruiser Rapid had hoisted the British flag in the Suwarew Islands, a small group in the South Pacific, to the north-west of Cook's Island; whether the statement

  1851
  contained in it is correct; and, if so, whether the annexation was made by instructions from the Admiralty; and whether any Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It is the fact that the commander of Her Majesty's ship Rapid, acting under instructions from Her Majesty's Government, annexed the Suwarew Islands on April 22 last. With regard to the production of papers on the subject, I do not think it would be desirable to publish all the correspondence at present.

  THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report given in the telegraphic columns of the Times of the 8th inst. is correct, to the effect that it had been officially announced at Pretoria, in the Transvaal,
  "That the Imperial Government had decided with regard to the Grobler-Khama incident, that the Chief Khama was guilty of an assault, and that he is therefore adjudged to pay Grobler's widow the sum of £200 annually;"
  whether he is aware that, before the occurrence of the above incident, the High Commissioner had instructed his Deputy Commissioner for Bechuanaland Protectorate in words to the following effect: that Khama was an independent chief, that Khama was quite strong enough himself to deal with refractory subordinate chiefs, and that if any Boers entered his country and took part against him, he should expel them (C. 5237, pp. 7, 8); if he will state what was the status of the Commissioner from the Transvaal who was present at the inquiry held in the Protectorate by Sir Sydney Shippard; and what further steps have been taken to settle this macter; and, if a decision has been arrived at, as announced at Pretoria, upon what is that decision based?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS, Liverpool, Toxteth): In answer to the first question put by the hon. Member, I have to state that the telegram is not accurate. Khama himself had nothing to do with the death of Mr. Grobler. The acts in respect of which Her Majesty's Government decided that £200 per annum should be paid as compensation to Mr. Grobler's widow, were those of Khama's native
  1852
  policemen. The words in the second question are correctly quoted; but as Mr. Grobler was a Consul returning to his own country, and not a freebooter, they do not apply. In answer to the third question, the Transvaal Commissioner was engaged in making an independent inquiry for the information of his own Government. With regard to the last question, the matter is settled by the Government of the South African Republic having fully accepted, on the behalf of its citizens concerned, the compensation awarded as stated to Mrs. Grobler, with a gratuity of £250 to Mr. Lotrie, who was wounded on the same occasion. Papers on the subject are about to be presented to Parliament.

  IRELAND—BOYCOTTING.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is correctly reported as having, in a speech addressed to Nonconformists at Willis's Rooms last Wednesday, used these words: "You will find, for example, that in the case of boycotting at Youghal, the boycotters, so far as I have been able to judge, have been instigated, in the first instance, by Roman Catholic priests, that the boycotters are invariably Roman Catholics, and that the boycottees are invariably Protestants;" whether this statement is to be understood as applying only to Youghal, or as extending to the whole of Ireland; whether he will lay upon the Table a statement showing the proportion of Protestants among all people boycotted; and whether he can cite an instance in any part of Ireland in which a branch of the National League has boycotted any Protestant as a Protestant, or on account of his religious belief?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The report seems accurate, except that "Roman Catholic priests" should be "a Roman Catholic priest." The statement referred only to Youghal, though no doubt priests have in other parts of Ireland frequently instigated boycotting. As regards the last paragraphs, I have to say that I not only never suggested that boycotting was on account of religious belief, but that I suggested precisely the contrary. If Protestants have been subjected to outrages instigated by the

  1853
  League, it is presumably because they have had the courage to resist its tyranny.
  MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that it was a particular Roman Catholic priest who was referred to, and if that conjecture is right, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence between the Roman Catholic priest referred to and the editor of a certain newspaper in England, in which the Roman Catholic priest indignantly denies having had anything to do with boycotting, and furthermore, that the boycotting had anything to do with religion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. CLANCY: Who is the Roman Catholic priest in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Canon Kellar.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that statement outside this House?
  MR. W. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the expression referred to in the question, "You will find that the boycotters are invariably Protestants?"
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that it is part of my functions to explain in this House speeches which are made outside the House. What I say is that so far as the boycotting in Youghal is concerned, it is openly alleged that the persons boycotted were Protestants and the boycotters were Roman Catholics. That was the statement made by the Lord Lieutenant, and it appears to be perfectly correct.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the majority of the persons boycotted are Catholics because they are land grabbers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already stated that the remarks of the Lord Lieutenant had relation to the boycotting at Youghal, and to Youghal alone.

  THE SUGAR BOUNTY CONVENTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Denmark declined to sign the Sugar Bounty Convention on the ground that the prohibitory Article
  1854
  (VII.) was irreconcileable with the most favoured nation clause of the Commercial Treaties (Commercial Papers, No. 13, pp. 373, 438); whether the Government of France declared, at the close of the Conference, that their assent was absolutely "conditional on the adhesion of all sugar-producing States," and that, "unless all sugar-producing countries became parties to the Convention, the prohibitory Article VII. would be contrary to the most favoured nation clauses" (ibid. p. 431); whether these conditions having been rejected the Government of France refused to sign the Convention (ibid. pp. 437, 438); and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any reason to believe that the Governments of Denmark and of France have abandoned the views thus stated, or that those Governments are prepared to recognize the right of States who are bound by the Convention to exclude, on the score of bounty, the sugar of ether States not parties to the Convention, who, under treaty or otherwise, are acting on the principle of the most favoured nation clause?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly quoted opinions expressed by the representatives of Denmark and France during the proceedings of the Sugar Conference, but the position of the Governments of those countries towards the Sugar Convention of August, 1888, is authoritatively defined in the declaration annexed to this Convention. Both having signed the draft Convention, and adhered in principle to it when completed, have accepted the suppression of Sugar Bounties within their territories. Denmark is not a sugar-producing country, and as France, having accepted that principle, took the lead in the Convention of August, 1888, the agreement that privileges under the most favoured nation clause should not be pleaded against prohibition, even on the part of such signatory States as might hereafter withdraw from the Convention, it does not seem reasonable to suppose that she could object on that ground to prohibition by other States, should it become necessary under the terms of the Convention.
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked the hon. Gentleman whether it was a fact that the clause proposed by France commenced with a statement that it is "on

  1855
  condition that all the sugar-producing countries join in the Convention"; and whether, on the motion of the President of the Conference, that condition was struck out before the clause was put into the Convention?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir, that was so; but the declaration that France accepted the Convention in principle was subsequent to it.
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked the hon. Gentleman whether his contention was that France was bound by a clause of which the material part was struck out?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The right hon. Gentleman's question involves a legal point, which I should be rather imprudent to answer offhand. I do not think he would do so himself, but the fact is that the Convention, with the reservation stated, was accepted in principle.

  THE SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in compliance with the promise of the Government on 11th April, that before the 16th of May the Government would fix a day on which they would propose to proceed with the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill, he would now state the day fixed?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The Government regard the Bill in question as not being one of immediate and pressing importance; and, as there are other measures which require the early consideration of the House, it is not the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill before Whitsuntide. They will give ample notice of the date when the Second Reading will be fixed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In connection with the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, that this is not a measure of urgent and pressing importance, I wish to ask him whether he has heard anything of the proceedings of the Protectionist Party in France and other countries, who are founding themselves on this Sugar Convention Bill as a means of obtaining restrictive legislation in those countries; and whether, if that is so, it is not a matter of very urgent importance that the decision of Parliament upon this Bill
  1856
  should be taken at the earliest possible date?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; I am without the information to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; and I am of opinion that we must, and that we are entitled to, proceed with the business which is now before the House, and which is of greater and more pressing and immediate importance than that to which the right hon. Gentleman now alludes.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the attention of the Government has been called to the serious derangement in many of the industries of this country which has followed the announcement of the intention of the Government to increase the price of sugar—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Well, I will withdraw that remark, and I will ask whether, in view of the derangement of many of the industries of the country in consequence of the announcement of the Government with regard to sugar, the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it a matter of urgent importance to state what the views of the Government are on the matter? Should the Government determine not to proceed with the measure, will the right hon. Gentleman make an immediate announcement of that fact to the House?
  MR. CAUSTON: Is the House definitely to understand that the Bill is withdrawn, or only postponed as a matter of convenience as to time for taking the Second Reading?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is to definitely understand that which I have clearly stated to the House in my answer. I have to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that we entirely deny that there is any derangement of industry whatever at the present time.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have had a letter from a former Member of the House and a large employer of labour, Mr. George Palmer of Reading, asserting that there is such a derangement of business, and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make an announcement as to the intentions of the Government at the earliest possible moment. Already the French Government are taking steps in the matter.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware that the price of sugar to the poor has considerably risen and is still rising, and whether that does not make the matter one of urgent and pressing importance?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: My attention has not been called to any considerable rise in the price of sugar. No doubt the price is higher, but it is not attributable to the proposed Convention. The price of sugar for delivery in the autumn is, I understand, much lower than usual.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: As the Convention is not to be ratified until the autumn of next year, does the right hon. Gentleman mean by postponing the Bill that it is only postponed until a later period of the Session, or postponed to any time before the ratification?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am very anxious to give all the information in my power, but it is impossible for me to say more at the present time than I have already said. The Government regard the business before the House—the Scotch measures especially—as of great importance, and they do not think they can proceed with the Sugar Convention Bill until after those measures have been disposed of.

  WEIGHING CLAUSES OF THE MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. J. SPENCER BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce his decision upon the applications which have been made to him to withdraw the exemptions from the weighing clauses of the Mines Regulation Act, granted to certain collieries at Burnley?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir. I am not able as yet to announce my decision upon these applications, pending an inquiry into the particular circumstances of the collieries, which I have directed the Mines Inspector to hold.

  IRELAND—THE OLPHERT EVICTIONS.
  MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the case that in the evictions to take place to-day at Glasserchoo, on the estate of Mr. Olphert in Donegal, it is intended to burn down the houses from
  1858
  which the tenants are evicted; and, whether he will give instructions to the police not to assist in burning the houses?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it the case that any evictions are to take place to-day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement to that effect in the first paragraph appears to be a blunder. There are no evictions to take place to-day. In answer to the remaining portion of the question, I have to say that the Constabulary Authorities report that the allegation contained in the first paragraph is, so far as they are aware, perfectly unfounded. There is no necessity to give the instructions indicated in the second paragraph, the police being quite aware of their duty in the matter.

  CHIEF RECEIVER (LANDED ESTATES).
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the office of Chief Receiver, to which Mr. Edward Murphy has been really appointed, is a new office; under what section or sections precisely of the Landed Estates Act or Judicature Act was the appointment made; out of what fund is Mr. Murphy paid his salary, and will his salary appear upon the Estimates; and, is it the fact that a new additional Stamp Duty was imposed upon the suitors for the purpose of producing funds for payment of his salary?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The temporary Chief Receivership to which Mr. Edward Murphy has been appointed is a new office. The appointment was made pursuant to the 9th Section of the Landed Estates Court Act and the 73rd Section of the Judicature Act. Mr. Murphy's salary will be met out of a fund created by the imposition of an additional Stamp Duty on the Receiver's Account, pursuant to the 84th Section of the Judicature Act. The salary will appear upon the Estimates.

  ARREARS OF RENT.
  MR. AIRDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it would be possible to obtain a Return, or, failing that, an approximate estimate, of the total amount of arrears for rent owing in the several counties of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret that the machinery at the disposal of the Irish Government would not admit of their obtaining such information with regard to arrears of rent as would enable them to give even the approximate estimate required; nor would it, I fear, be possible without legislation to devise any means by which the information sought by my hon. Friend could be obtained.

  INJURIOUS PAINTS.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the serious injury to the health of the workmen employed in carbonate whitelead factories, he would consider whether sulphate whitelead could not, at any rate partially, be used in its place?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Trials of white paints, prepared in the manner suggested in the question, have been made in the Dockyards, but the result has not been such as to lead to their adoption in the Service. Any suitable invention, free from the defects hitherto found to exist in the compounds submitted for trial, would be readily accepted by the Admiralty.

  BROMPTON CEMETERY.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary for State for the Home Department whether the Board of Health reported, so long ago as 1851, that Brompton Cemetery did not possess the conditions essential to a burial ground, and recommended that it should be closed; whether the Government then purchased this cemetery, and have since carried on the business of the cemetery; whether representations have reached him that the soil of the cemetery has become perfectly surcharged with human corruption, and is a serious danger to the neighbourhood; and, whether he will order that the cemetery shall be closed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed that the earliest report on this cemetery is in February, 1853, when Dr. Sutherland reported that the Brompton Cemetery could afford burial space for upwards of 3,000 bodies per annum for an indefinite period without injury to the public health. The Treasury purchased the cemetery under the 46 Section of the 15 and 16 Vict., c. 85. The only com-
  1860
  plaint made to the Home Office was on May 16, 1876, by a Mr. Wright, who was of opinion that the cemetery was injurious to the health of a thickly populated district. Mr. Rolland, the Burial Inspector, reported on this complaint that no interference was necessary. The present Burial Inspector reports to me that there is no ground whatever for saying that the soil of the cemetery has become surcharged with human corruption, or that it is any danger to the neighbourhood. There is still available space for common interments for at least three years, and in private and select ground for an indefinite period. There is no reason for closing the cemetery, and the present regulations are quite sufficient to prevent injury to the public health.

  SIR HERCULES ROBINSON.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will undertake to lay upon the Table of the House a full and authentic report of the speech delivered by Sir Hercules Robinson at a farewell banquet in the Cape Colony?
  BARON H, DE WORMS: In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Secretary of State regrets that he does not see his way to comply with his request. Sir Hercules Robinson is now on his way home, and his views will be laid before the Secretary of State and fully considered by Her Majesty's Government.

  REFUSAL TO ACCEPT A VERDICT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that Sir Peter Edlin refused to take a jury's verdict of "Not Guilty" a few days ago; and if he had any legal right to do so?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the learned Judge that, in the case to which he understands the question to refer, the defendant was charged with having unlawfully and maliciously wounded his wife. He did not refuse to accept the verdict. On the contrary, he did accept it, and the prisoner was acquitted and discharged; but before accepting it, having reason to think that the jury might have misunderstood the meaning of the

  1861
  word "maliciously" in the indictment, he directed their attention to the legal meaning of that term. The Judge considered it to be his duty to guard against any possible error on this score; and he did no more than be had a right to do.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the statement of the learned Judge made after the verdict was returned?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I am not informed whether it was after the acquittal or not, but I presume it was after the foreman had delivered the verdict verbally. It is a matter of common practice in this country.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is the whole point. Are we to understand that after the verdict was returned, and when the record ought to have been filled up, the learned Judge questioned the verdict of the jury?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: My information is that the learned Judge simply desired to explain a point, the significance of which the jury were likely to have misunderstood.

  SCOTCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the four Bills which were simultaneously introduced as constituting together the scheme of Local Government in Scotland proposed by Her Majesty's Government, whether it is intended that, on the stage of Second Reading, the Bills should again be simultaneously discussed, or that each Bill should be taken separately; and whether the former course will be in accordance with the Rules of the House?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the House will be content to refer No. 2 Bill to a Standing Committee, and in those circumstances will consider in debate Bills Nos. 1 and 2. With regard to No. 3, Parochial Boards Bill, it will be open to the House to take what course it prefers. But if it should be the pleasure of the House to give a Second Reading to that Bill immediately after the other Bill the Government will be exceeding glad. Bill No. 4, referring to Private Bill legislation, is totally distinct, and, I am afraid, must be separately considered.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is evident, from the answer of the right hon.
  1862
  Gentleman, that he is in an extremely genial state of mind, and is disposed to give all the information he can. May I ask whether we are to understand that when the Scotch Bills are disposed of in their material stages it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Sugar Bounties Bill?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I fully appreciate the good feeling of the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be glad to inform him at the earliest possible moment what we intend to do.
  DR. CAMERON: As a point of order arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask the Speaker whether, if the two first Local Government Bills are taken together, it is competent for the second standing on the Paper on the same day as the first to be discussed along with it. Must not the debate be restricted to the Bill regarding which the question will be put in the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have been privately asked my opinion upon the matter, and I hold the opinion that it would be impossible to discuss all the four Bills together, but that the Bills referring to the Poor Law and to private Bill legislation should be entirely distinct. But the first and second Bills might be discussed together, the second Bill, if I recollect rightly, dealing with supplementary provisions to Bill No. 1, the precedent of the Local Government England Bills would thus be followed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: To what Grand Committee is it proposed to refer Bill No. 2? Any Bill dealing with law may be referred to the Grand Committee on law, but this deals with trade and commerce as well as law, and is it proposed to appoint another Grand Committee?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman will ask me that question when we reach the Second Reading of the Bill I shall be very glad to give him an answer.

  IRELAND—THE LORD LIEUTENANCY.
  MR. HOWORT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the impending resignation of the Lora Lieutenancy of Ireland by Lord Londonderry, and the very widespread feeling that if the office is maintained it should be detached as much as possible from

  1863
  Party politics, the Government will consider, before making a new appointment, the propriety of advising the Crown to depute the ceremonial duties of the Lord Lieutenant to one of the Royal Princes, and to make suitable provisions for his residence in Ireland during a portion of each year?
  MR. HENEAGEalso asked whether, in view of the impending resignation of the Lord Lieutenant, the Government will consider the expediency of introducing a Bill to abolish the office, and to transfer the administrative duties of the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary to a Secretary of State for Ireland.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite refer to subjects of great delicacy and importance, and they will feel, I am sure, that it is impossible for me to come under any engagement with the House beyond this—that the Government will give their most anxious consideration to them.

  CHRONIC DISTRESS IN TOWNS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he can promise a day for the further discussion on the Adjourned Debate on the chronic distress in towns, &c.?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I regret that it is not in my power to offer any day.

  LAGOS.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the petition of Mr. J. A. Payne, the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Lagos, and 48 other Native officials in the public service of that Colony, which was presented to the Governor of Lagos on the 13th November, 1888, and a copy of the Governor's reply, and, also, a memorial, signed by the same Native officials, presented to the Governor on the 12th of March last, with a request that it might be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and, whether he has taken, or proposes to take any, and what, action in the matter?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The papers referred to by my hon. Friend have been received. The Secretary of State has written to the Governors of the
  1864
  West African Colonies suggesting rules with regard to leave of absence, which will probably meet the wishes of the petitioners on the point. With regard to the pay and prospects of native officials, I may say that, when vacancies occur, the Secretary of State is always glad to approve of the promotion of a native, and the claims of any natives who may be qualified to fill the higher posts in the service are always carefully considered.

  AFFAIRS IN MARÉ.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, since the expulsion of the Rev. John Jones from Maré, one of the Loyalty Islands, the Protestant natives are being subjected to cruel persecution; whether M. Goblet, referring to Mr. Jones' expulsion, said, "The principle of religious liberty is by no means in question;" whether any information has reached the Foreign Office that, on 14th January, 1889, a native pastor, named Waiwi, while attending a marriage feast of one of the Church members, was seized and handcuffed, and has been sentenced to cease the administration of the Lord's Supper to the people; whether Naihele, the bride, who had invited her pastor to attend the wedding, was cast into prison for holding Bible classes among the young people; and if he can give any information to the House as to the present state of affairs in Maré?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: In reply to the first, third, and fourth paragraphs of my hon. Friend's question, we have received no reports of persecution of Protestant Natives of the Loyalty Islands, nor of the occurrences alleged to have taken place. As to the second, Monsieur Goblet stated in a note dated 26th July, 1888, which is among the Papers laid before Parliament (France, No. 3, 1888, page 57) that "the principle of religious liberty is by no means in question." As to the fifth, we have no later reports of the state of affairs in Maré.
  In further answer to Mr. Johnston,
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the Govern-would endeavour to get what information they could.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask if it is the intention to take the Vivisection Debate on the Report of Supply to-night, or whether it will be taken at all this week?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think it will be reasonable to ask the House to take it to-night, but I will endeavour to come to some arrangement in regard to it.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not continue to put it down upon the Paper unless there is some reasonable prospect of its being reached.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I will consider what can be done in the matter.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Am I to assume that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the third Order applies also to the fourth, which also relates to the Report of Supply?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.
  MR. MUNDELLA: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the technical character of the Tonnage Bill, and the important interests involved in it, he will consider the advisability of referring it to the Grand Committee on Trade?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is a very good one, and I shall be happy to consider it. My own view is that it is desirable.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: Will the Report on the Sugar Trade be placed on the Table before the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill is taken?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope to present that Report in a very few days.

  IRELAND—TREATMENT OF MR. J. O'CONNOR.
  MR. FLYNN: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he has received any information in corroboration of the statement in the newspapers that my hon. Friend the the Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) is lying upon a plank bed although suffering from acute rheumatism?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I have had no such information.
  MR. FLYNN: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LABOUR.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I desire a question with reference to the invitation of the Swiss Confederation for an International Conference with regard to the regulation of factory labour. I see that three European Governments—Belgium, Holland, and Italy—have given in their adhesion. Have Her Majesty's Government given any answer to the invitation?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No answer has yet been given to the invitation addressed by the President of the Swiss Confederation to Her Majesty's Government; but the subject is receiving the very careful consideration of the Government. Communications are in progress, and we hope to he able to send an answer in the course of a very few days.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the answer will be known to the House before the discussion of the Vote for the Foreign Office?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say whether that will be the case or not, but the Government will have no hesitation in submitting their decision to the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman expedite the communication to the House, because, if it were adverse, it would be necessary to discuss the conduct of the Government in refusing.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be no delay in communicating the decision to the House.

MOTION.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill for establishing a Board of Agriculture for Great Britain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Viscount Lewisham.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 221.]

ORDERS OF' THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL (No 215).
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time"
  MR. PICTON, in moving "That this House is unwilling to sanction a Bill which involves the continuance for another year of the present duty on tea," said: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has expressed a hope and an expectation that this stage of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill will be a very brief one, and that the discussion of the provisions of the measure will be deferred until the Committee stage is reached. Now, I venture to think that no stage of the Bill would be as appropriate for the consideration of my Motion as the present one, because if the Motion should be carried it would be absolutely necessary to re-construct the taxation of the year upon wholly different principles. I therefore think I am justified in asking the House kindly to listen to me shortly before we proceed to the later stages of the Bill. In bringing the Motion forward again this year I am quite prepared to be charged with importunacy; but my experience of the House of Commons has impressed me deeply with the wisdom contained in the well-known parable of the unjust Judge. Not that I would charge this House with injustice; but I think that all suitors to this House would do well to follow the example of the poor widow who, by her importunity, wearied the Judge, and in the end got her request. I feel obliged to take this course; it is widows and poor women who constitute by far the larger number of clients, in whose behalf I am about to make this appeal. It is of no use to tell me that the question does not excite any clamour out of doors. Wise legislators would prefer to render clamour unnecessary on a question like this rather than wait until the public mind is excited. I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his well-known financial skill, has been during his tenure of office, the sport of popular passion. Instead of pushing forward to higher
  1868
  applications those principles of just taxaation, which he learnt from even a greater master than himself, he has been watching from the serene height of his official position the toiling world of business and labouring men below, in order that like a bird of prey he might suddenly pounce down upon the weak and unwary. In the first place he tried the Cart and Wheel Tax, but was speedily frightened off; he then seized upon pleasure horses and was thrown off again. This year he has swooped down upon the thrifty hoarders of personalty in order to persecute them, for the benefit of the sacred landed interest. I think the right hon. Gentleman would do better if he were to give up this vain attempt to balance one selfish interest against another, and to seek out rather what is safe and just for the whole community. I can find no better justification for my Motion than the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself in the speech in which he introduced his Budget. He said:
  "It is our duty to have a special sympathy for the struggling professional or trading class —for the men with incomes from £300 to £700 a year, whose situation requires them to spend all, or nearly all, they earn, leaving no margin, or a very small margin, beyond their expenditure."
  Sir, we are asked to show sympathy for certain classes of income taxpayers, but if we are called upon to deal tenderly with those having incomes of from £300 to £700, because they have to spend all, or nearly all that they earn, leaving no margin, or scarcely any margin, still more tenderly ought we to deal with those who, with all the agony of struggling, cannot make both ends meet, and who have to spend more than they earn, and if they have any margin at all have it on the wrong side. It is to the case of these poor people that I am calling attention, and I earnestly hope that I shall not plead in vain. The right hon. Gentleman, in the very next sentence after that which I have quoted, said that he would look to the surplus which could be put by rather than to the resources which could not be diminished without imposing sacrifices out of proportion to the sacrifices made by other Members of the community, or to use another phrase, he said he would lay special weight upon accumulations. Now, Sir, it is precisely because the Tea Duty is flagrantly at variance with those

  1869
  principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am attacking it now. I shall prove that the Tea Duty is a plunder of poverty and distress. Tea has become a necessary of life; it is a special consolation to the poor and heavy laden when they are overdone by daily toil. The tired seamstress, the exhausted washerwoman, the poor under-paid teacher all find refreshment in their cup of tea, and you will often hear a hard-working woman declare at the end of the day that she cannot keep on unless she has a cup of tea. Now, the tax upon tea amounts to sixpence for every pound consumed by these patient, suffering, laborious people. And, again, I contend it is a case of plundering poverty and distress. Sir, if I could gather into one picture the thousands of garrets in this great Metropolis, and in other large cities and towns which are the haunts of ill-paid and suffering women; if we could only realize the temptations ever pressing upon them to partake of drinks which bring madness and dishonour in their train, I do not think I should plead in vain when I urge that this kind of refreshment should be lightened of the tax, and should be made as cheap as possible. For without any deviation whatever from the strictest lines of political economy, by taking off this sixpenny tax upon tea, we could actually add about a week's wages to many of the most poorly paid labourers in our country. This is a consideration which the House ought not lightly to disregard. We are asked to mulct these poor creatures in a week's or half a week's wages in order to build ironclads, and to provide soldiers, gunpowder, and weapons of destruction. Why, if that proposal were made now for the first time in so many words to this House, the proposal would be scouted, and yet that is what we are actually doing by enforcing this tax upon tea. In many poor houses tea is drunk as often as four times a day. I know there are very few hon. Members in this House who drink it so often, but that is simply because they have a sufficiency of beef and mutton and of other generous sustenance, and they can get ample stimulants for the brain without drinking tea. But people who have to live on bread and herring for breakfast, bread and bacon
  1870
  for dinner, and bread and dripping for tea or supper, cannot be so satisfied, and need some stimulant, and if they do not have tea they must partake of some other drink which is most dangerous for them. Prudence and industry induce these people to drink tea instead of beer. Two of the reasons, then, upon which I ask the House to abolish this tax upon tea are that it is drunk by those who are in abject poverty, and that it is partaken of for reasons of self-control, prudence, and industry. Are either of these fit qualities for taxation? Surely a just Government would do all it possibly could to encourage properties like this. Now, Sir, I wish to lay before the House some few considerations to show how very disproportionate this tax is, which has to be borne by the ranks of labour. I say the ranks of labour, because I prefer using that phrase to saying working classes, because, in my opinion, the ranks of labour do not constitute a class at all; they form the vast majority of the population. Professor Leoni Levi, in his book on "The Wages and Earnings of the Working Classes," published, I believe, in 1885, holds that those who work for wages are two out of three in the population; but then he separates from these workers for wages the lower middle class, whom he treats as having incomes ranging from £100 to £110 per year. Now, Sir, for my purpose in regard to the tea-tax, I contend that the lower middle class must be reckoned in the ranks of labour, because an income of £100 or £110 does not raise them beyond the needs of this class. Therefore if I add the lower middle class to Professor Leoni Levi's workers for wages, I find that altogether they constitute five-sixths of the whole proportion of the country. The question I am urging upon the attention of the House is whether the sixpence a pound they pay for tea is a fair share of taxation, and whether it presses fairly or unfairly upon them. Now, I need not ask whether they ought to pay in general to the sustenance of national expenditure, because my point is that they pay in a much greater proportion than those who are more comfortably off. In the first place, they drink a great deal more tea, and consequently they have to pay a greater share of this taxation. In the next place, I have to urge that the

  1871
  taxation is much heavier in the lower qualities of tea, in proportion to the charge on the higher qualities, because it is sixpence a pound all round. And whereas, while on the tea costing four-pence half-penny or fivepence in bond, the tax amounts to more than 100 per cent on the value, in the case of tea costing two shillings and sixpence per pound it is only 20 or 25 per cent. Therefore at least seven-eighths of the tax upon tea falls upon the shoulders of poor. It may be said that they do not drink it as strong as the rich people do, but then they cannot afford to do so; but that makes my case all the stronger. They want tea as a gentle stimulus, but because of the tax they are obliged to drink it so weak that it does not do them much good. Therefore I contend they are robbed of their just dues by a tax which presses, I believe, iniquitously upon them. I take it that the tax upon beer amounts to about two-pence per gallon, or about a farthing per pint. Well now, I find that according to one calculation made by the officials in the Tea Room in this House, sixteen pints can be made from one pound of tea, and that gives you a tax of a little less than a halfpenny per pint. But this is strong tea, and I have consulted an authority who takes an opposite extreme, and says it is possible to make 42 pints out of a pound of tea. If you take the extreme estimate, you find that even then the taxation upon tea amounts to half-a-farthing per pint, so that while everyone who drinks a pint of beer has to pay one farthing to the tax gatherer, the drinker of this weak tea has to pay half-a-farthing for the privilege of drinking a pint of that. Sir, I do not think that that is a proper proportion, and I appeal to the friends of temperance in this House whether such a tax should be imposed upon tea. Take the consumption of a poor family, consisting of a father, mother, and three children, whose wages come unitedly to 20 or 25 shillings per week. As a general rule they consume half a pound of tea per week, though I know that there are some families which have to be content with less. I have come into contact, for instance, with a labourer earning 11 shillings per week, who had to be content with a quarter of a pound of tea per week, until after his children had
  1872
  left home. Then, although he was earning just the same wages, he and his wife increased their quantity; thus showing that before they had had to stint themselves of what was necessary for their comfort. Remember, the consumption of half a pound of tea per week represents 13 shillings a year, paid in taxes, which is more than many agricultural labourers earn in one week. Is it to be wondered at, Sir, that a revenue obtained from such a source as this should prove inelastic? Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that the consumption of tea just kept pace with the population; this year we are informed that the proceeds from the tea tax were disappointing, the increase had only been one-third per cent, whilst the population had increased at the rate of one per cent. I know that the right hon. Gentleman explained that this was mainly attributable to the increased use of Indian tea. But here, Sir, I find a very strong argument on my side, because it is precisely the discouragement imposed by this tax on a growing trade with India which forms one of the strongest points against the duty. It is true that the use of Indian tea has increased considerably at the expense of Chinese tea, and experience shows that if only you abolish the tea duty the trade in Indian tea would increase by leaps and bounds, to the great benefit not only of our poor population at home, but of our vast population in India—in that great dependency of which we are never weary of boasting, as one of the brightest and most splendid jewels in the British Crown. Surely we ought not to discourage a profitable and growing industry, like the tea trade in India, by enforcing this duty of sixpence per pound. Now, Sir, I should like to sum up my arguments in opposition to this tax. In the first place, I have shown that it is borne to the extent of seven-eighths by the ranks of labour. I have shown that it presses particularly on misery and suffering; that it is a tax on temperance, and that it bears an improper proportion to the taxation on beer. It takes an appreciable part out of the income of the worker; it discourages the consumption of tea, and finally, it is unfair in its operation to our great dependency of India. But, Sir, I cannot sit down without alluding to some of the objections which are sure to be made

  1873
  against my proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regretted last year very much that there were so few objects upon which he could lay his hands for taxation; but remembering the beneficent course of financial reform by which the great Leader on this side of the House had thrown so widely open our trade, and had removed taxation from all necessaries of life with the single exception of tea, the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the justice of the doctrine that taxation should be upon accumulations and not upou matters of consumption. I suppose I shall be told again that there are very few subjects possible for taxation, and that it is inexpedient to lessen them still further. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have the courage of his opinions expressed in his recent speech, and that he would look forward to the true ideal of taxation, which I take to be this, that with a few exceptions for certain luxuries, all Imperial taxation ought to be drawn from realized property, whether in land or funds. I would not go so far as Henry George, who advocates one single tax — a tax only on land, but I do think the land might yield a great deal more than it does at present. I know when such a proposal is made, there is a great outcry from hon. Members opposite about the poor landed interest. That interest is always complaining. It reminds me of the hypochondriac, who thinks that he has all the diseases under the sun, when in fact, he only wants a little fresh air and exercise. And so it is with land. If you get rid of all the settlements, entails, mortgages, and game laws which keep it down, it would once more flourish, and it would be able to bear much more taxation. I know that we are told that it cannot bear more because it yields only 2½ per cent to investors, but it must not be forgotten that land owners or investors, in land are quite willing to consider that the prestige that goes with the possession of land, and the political influence which attaches to it are equal to another 2½ per cent. Sir, if the land were treated on more commercial principles than it is now, it would be capable of yielding very much more to the exchequer. I contend, however, whatever may be the proportion that should
  1874
  be raised from land, we ought to get a far larger part of our taxation from realized property, whether personal or real, from accumulations in fact. We are told that there are ten thousand millions of accumulations in this country, and if we charged these with only a quarter per cent, we should get twenty-five millions of income. There I suggest is a resource for future Chancellors of Exchequer. If they will only put the tax on these accumulations, they will be able to abolish income tax, and also abandon these imposts on the necessaries of the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once indicated that he is strongly at variance with the doctrine that the scanty incomes of the labourer should be altogether free from taxation. I do not think that that is so dreadful a thing at all in a wealthy nation like this, and I think where the labourers are nearly, if not all, quite on the borders of pauperism, they have claims upon our consideration, which have not always been attended to. As regards these accumulations, we ought to see how they have been gathered together. It is because the landowners have been living in a prosperous country, and a country to a considerable extent depending for its prosperity on the energy and industry of its labourers that the value of the land belonging to many of the proprietors has enormously increased. I know noble Lords who possess land in the neighbourhood of great towns. Their ancestors got it in times long gone by for an old song, and now it is worth £20 or £30 the square yard, and that without the slightest effort on their part. They never had anything to do with the trade of the community that made their land so valuable, and have never done a stroke of eommercial work in their lives. Whilst they neither toiled nor span, industries have been growing up, and the value of their property has increased in consequence. I am not in favour of dividing the goods of the rich amongst the poor, but I am in favour of showing a generous consideration for the poor because they have not sufficiently shared in the prosperity to which they have so largely contributed. Again, under the present system of wages, labour does not share as it ought, in the profits of industrial enterprise. Wages are, as everyone know, fixed

  1875
  by the standard of the necessary cost of living. If the standard rises, wages must rise or work must stop. If the standard falls wages must fall. There are companies which distribute dividends of 16, 20, and even 25 per cent, and they are not ashamed to pay 9s. and 10s. a week to their poor female workers. I do not say for a moment that they ought to make paupers of these people, but I do say that out of the 16 or 20 per cent, some 5 or 7 per cent might very well be divided amongst the poor workers at the end of the year, and then they would have a share in the profits. It is because they have not got that at the present time time that I think they should be generously considered in the matter of taxation, and that it is very cruel, indeed, to ask them to pay 6d. a pound on their tea. I may be told that this savours of socialism. Well, Sir, I shall not be at all terrified by that observation. I am justified in being comparatively callous to it, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) said with much point a short time ago, in public, "We are all socialists now." I quite understand and I do not wish to misinterpret that remark. There is a sense in which it is perfectly true. It is only by socialism, in the best sense, which I am sure is what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, that we can discourage communism, which would eat the heart out of the community. It is only by putting all our common interests upon a common basis, and causing the abundance of the rich to make good the want of the poor, in our public affairs, that we can ease the load of the poor in life, and show them something better than the vicious communism which is often preached to them. Being recently in Scotland upon a Royal Commission I heard much there about "the common good." I had not heard the phrase used in the same sense in our English towns. In Scotland they seemed to speak of corporate property as "common good." It is an admirable phrase. I wish we had not only the phrase, but the principle amongst us. Surely a fair share of the accumulations of which I have been speaking are a debt owing to the community, which has not had its legitimate proportion of them. I am afraid I can scarcely hope for a majority upon this question, but I
  1876
  feel impelled to go to a Division upon my Motion. I invite all those hon. Members who really believe in the doctrines preached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the incidence of taxation upon surplus, I invite all who think threepence a week too much to take in taxes on tea out of the wages of a poor family, I invite all friends of temperance who do not think it fair that beer and tea should be taxed almost alike, or much too nearly alike, I invite all genuine Radicals, and I invite also all those prudent Conservatives who agree with me that a kindly socialism is the best preventative of a fierce and destructive communism to vote with me. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is unwilling to sanction a Bill which involves the continuance for another year of the present Duty on Tea"—(Mr. Picton),
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Sir W. Lawsonformally seconded the Motion.
  MR. GEDGE: I think, Sir, it would have been kinder of the hon. Member, who has ingeniously taken us round the whole range of political economy and social economy and taxation in general, if he had given us a little hint of it in his Amendment so that we might have been prepared to reply to him. I do not, however, intend to follow him over all the ground he has covered, I wish simply to ask the House to consider whether this tax is or is not a proper tax to be levied, having regard to the fact that it produces four and a half millions sterling a year, collected with very little expense or friction. I think we shall nearly all agree that the working man who earns weekly wages should pay some taxes. As, unfortunately, it is necessary to raise money by taxes every year in order to keep the machinery of Government in motion, I think everybody ought to contribute his share towards the total amount wanted. As every man enjoys the benefits of living under a properly organized Govern-

  1877
  ment, every man ought to pay something towards the cost; and especially now that everybody possesses the voting power. Upon the voting body, of whom the poor form a large proportion, depends the decision of many great questions, such as that of war and of peace, in which questions of expenditure are largely involved. I do not think it would be for the advantage of the country if large classes of the people escaped taxation altogether; and how are you to get at the wage- earning classes unless you tax some article of general consumption? They certainly do not pay income tax or house tax, and it rarely happens that they pay the Death Duties. There is nothing they pay taxes on except the tax on the tobacco they smoke, the tax on beer and the tax on tea. I would point out that the poor families who are spoken of as being severely handled if they have to pay as much as 13s. a-year upon their tea, their wages being assumed to be the same sum per week, because the tax is a 52nd part of their income, do not in some cases confine themselves to the consumption of tea, but the father and mother generally take beer also and the father smokes tobacco. If a man smokes an ounce and a half of tobacco a-week he will pay 4d. upon that, and he and his wife will perhaps have to pay 3½d. a-week in taxation upon their beer. It must also be remembered that the man who pays an income tax of 6d. in the £, pays in that tax alone a 40th of his income, and he also pays the Tea Duty as well as the House Duty, and various other taxes which the poor man escapes. While we should be very glad to see the burden of the Tea Duty lightened if it could be, it does not seem to us to be a very large amount to pay. The general objection to indirect taxation upon articles of consumption like bread is that the poorer a man is the greater the proportion of his money that goes in taxation upon the articles taxed. I think, however, with regard to tea, that it is drunk in families very much in proportion to the income. In many families they use half a pound of tea per head a week. We know the fashion of tea-drinking now—tea in bed in the morning, tea at breakfast, tea at four o'clock, and tea after dinner. The result is that the rich man pays in proportion far more of the Tea Duty than
  1878
  the poor man. If this tax were abolished, as the hon. Member proposes, what taxes would the teetotal working man pay? I do not wish to tax teetotalizm, but it seems to me that the teetotaler gets the benefit of the system of Government equally with the man who drinks beer, and I do not see why he should pay nothing whatever. His teetotalism and his thrift enable him to bear the burden of taxation better than others of his own class. I think it is probable that before long the teetotalers will not smoke any more than they drink now. I know the Salvation Army, which is having great popularity amongst the masses and is doing a great deal of good bars tobacco as well as beer and endeavours to get its young people to take the pledge against both. It seems to me that the teetotaler ought to pay some tax, and if you take off the tea duty he will pay none. There are difficulties in the way of making it an ad valorem tax, and the result is a certain inequality. There are, however, inequalities in all things. The teetotaler ought to pay some tax, and therefore I think this tax ought not to be abolished.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I do not complain of the hon. Member's introduction of this subject, which he also brought forward last year. Evidently he has the matter very strongly at heart, and he may be right in indulging in importunity in bringing it forward. I am not, however, so satisfied with the somewhat grotesque description he gave of the financial policy I have pursued. I must say I think he exaggerated and perverted the history of the last three Budgets in a somewhat extraordinary fashion, and I hope he will excuse me if I do not follow him in that portion of his speech. I object to some of the phrases he used because I think they are likely to do harm. When he speaks of taxation which is imposed for the purpose of the government of the country as plunder, he uses a phrase which is unnecessarily strong and which is a dangerous phrase to employ. I may point out that there has been no additional taxation of tea for any purpose whatever. The duty has remained at its present level since 1866. If the working classes pay that duty,

  1879
  they pay it, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Gedge) has justly pointed out, for the whole machinery of government under which they live, and for the maintenance of the institutions which they enjoy. I certainly hold that every person should contribute something towards taxation. It is quite competent for the hon. Member to contend that some one class pays more than its proportion. I think, however, the hon. Member goes too far when he pleads that the working classes ought to make no contribution whatever to taxation. He indulges in a fallacy which is very frequently advanced when he argues his whole point on the basis of the very poorest class. All taxation bears with very great severity on the poorest people. The hon. Member referred to the poorest class, to whom, no doubt, the Tea Duty is a most important item, but if his resolution were adopted, he would bring about a result which would not be in accordance with the wish of many of those who belong to his Party —namely, that a large class of persons would contribute nothing whatever to the revenue. The hon. Member considers that we ought to relinguish altogether the £4,500,000 or £5,000,000 sterling we derive from this tax, and he only throws out one suggestion to meet the financial difficulty that would thus be created—namely, that we should put a tax upon accumulations. The hon. Member lays hold of a phrase of mine to the effect that we should look to accumulations rather than to profits. I think it is scarcely doing me justice to suggest that as a general proposition on which I should be glad to rest the whole taxation of the country. He takes a rather fantastic return of the aggregate accumulations of the country, and upon that he suggests that we should raise a duty of 1 per cent. This proposition means that if you have a person possessed of £10,000, and receiving £300 a year income from it, you are to take £100 from that £300 every year.
  *MR. PICTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to remember that I did not propose that. I said ¼ per cent.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Then the income tax the hon. Member would propose upon the £300 a year would amount to £25, which is rather a heavy annual tax to put upon such an income. I really think the hon. Member has not thought
  1880
  out his proposition in this respect; nor has he examined the Return in detail, or he would have seen that, in order to make up the £8,000,000,000 he mentioned, £300,000,000 are put down as belonging to people who are so poor that they do not pay income tax at all. Upon that group of persons the hon. Member would levy this enormous tax. Again, farming stock and implements of husbandry are included in the Return. I need not labour the point, however, because I think it would be long before any responsible statesman would think of imposing such a tax. There is, no doubt, a tax of the kind in the United States, but I have read of the fraud and perjury to which it leads, and I know statesmen in America speak of it with sorrow and regret. The hon. Member said he thought from the lessons I have derived from the finance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) I might have conceived it to be my duty to repeal this tax; but the House will remember that the tax has stood where it now stands since 1866, that in the interval we have seen the income tax reduced from 6d. to 5d., and from 5d. to 4d., and from 4d. to 3d. when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, and that nevertheless the Tea Duty has not been touched. It must also be remembered that the price of tea has fallen to such an extent that less is paid for tea now than would have been paid if there had been no duty at all twenty years ago. We are glad to think that the falling off in the price of this article has contributed so much to the comfort of the poor. I do not maintain that the duty must always remain at 6d. I do not think it is a very light tax. But what the hon. Member proposes is that we should impose other taxation now in order to replace the 4½ millions sterling we should lose by taking off of this duty. I do not think there are many Members of the House who would be willing to face that. In a year when there is a large surplus to dispose of, tea would have a good claim to some consideration, but I maintain that it would be a deplorable error of judgment to abolish the Tea Duty altogether and thereby to establish the principle that a large proportion of the population need never pay any taxes at all. I think the House would be scarcely

  1881
  prepared to create such a gap in the Revenue of the country as would be created by the abolition of the Tea Duty.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I feel sympathy with a great deal that has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), and certainly the duty on tea cannot be regarded as a light duty. Comparing the duty now with the cost price of tea, it is a much heavier duty than it was some years ago. Pro rata with the value of the commodity, the duty is a high one. We may congratulate ourselves, at all events, if the Tea Duty is to remain, that it seems probable, from what we have heard this evening, that the measure for raising the price of sugar is likely to be indefinitely postponed, and the hon. Member for Leicester has that consolation, though he may be unable to enforce his views as to the Tea Duty. We have voted a large sum for public expenditure, and we must find the money for this expenditure. It must be remembered that if the Tea Duty is not to be removed, other taxes have to be imposed, and this is due to that enormous and, in my opinion, preposterous expenditure to which we are committed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech made in the country some months ago, maintained that he had a good surplus, and that everything seemed favourable to his Budget, but then there were demands made upon him that ruined his Budget. Well, they have ruined his Budget. In a time which we may call, as compared with recent years, one of public prosperity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a large surplus has to come forward and make proposals for increased taxation. What is the reason of this? It was given by an authority that will be accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, Lord Beaconsfield many years ago, when he, in a lucid interval—I mean not to Lord Beaconsfield, but to the Party—denounced bloated armaments, and said, "expenditure must depend on policy." There never was a time that afforded a more conspicuous instance of the truth of this. What is the situation? The hon. Member for Leicester might very fairly have made a demand for the reduction of the Tea Duty. I think a very fair and very proper demand it would have been. He would have said to the
  1882
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, "you have got a surplus which according to all rules of finance has hitherto been distributed among the different classes of the community;" and the reduction of the Tea Duty would have been a very fair contribution towards the relief of the taxation of the most numerous class in this country. Well what is the situation? The additions you have made in this one financial year to the expenditure of the country would have almost enabled you to repeal the Tea Duty altogether. I think it is not very far short of £4,000,000 you have added to the expenditure of the country this year, and, mind you, that addition has been made in face of the declaration of every Member of the Government last year that expenditure at that time (last year) was amply sufficient for the necessities of the country; therefore, this is a new discovery made by the Government themselves in 12 months that it is indispensable to make this enormous addition to the expenditure of the country. If you go into a policy of this kind you cannot decrease the Tea Duty, and, indeed, you have to increase taxation not only in the Death Duties and the Beer Duty, but you must go on adding to every source and commodity for taxation. There was a very alarming and ominous phrase in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that "he wished he had more sources of taxation." So, I suppose, in the future we must look to have duties raised from other commodities and other sources of taxation. I thought this one of the most alarming sentiments I ever heard from a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House. It seems we are to revise the financial policy of many years, which has been so beneficial to the people of this country, not in regard to the Sugar Duty only, but in the principles of general taxation. The great object of that policy was in 1841, according to Sir Robert Peel, to diminish the taxed articles in use among the people of this country, and after the lapse of all these years since 1841 we have, I think, for the first time a Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up in the House of Commons holding out a prospect of imposing taxation on other and more numerous articles than those taxed hitherto. That is

  1883
  not, I think, a pleasant prospect; but it is the inevitable consequence of the policy you are pursuing. There are missionaries and apostles of extravagance going about the country. As I read this morning, there is a political partizan adjutant-general making a violent Party speech, a thing totally unheard of in our Army organization before. I have never heard of anybody in the position of adjutant-general holding language and behaving in the manner pursued by the present adjutant-general. All this is intended to inflame expenditure; and if you have enormous expenditure you must have increased taxation. I see the hon. Baronet the Member for Sussex (Sir W. Barttelot) opposite. He does not like, as he said, some of the proposals made, though I have no doubt he sympathises in the objects which make that taxation necessary; but everybody will have to suffer under a policy of this kind, and the fair expectation which the working classes might have had of relief from taxation is gone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus to begin with. I am speaking of the surplus of the coming year, upon which every Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated. I never congratulate a Chancellor of the Exchequer on what is called a realized surplus, because a realized surplus is merely the result of incorrect Estimates. The theory of the finance of this country is that each year you should only ask from the people as much as is wanted for the year with a small and reasonable margin that you may not be on the wrong side at the end of the year. There should be a margin of from £200,000 to £300,000. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows a margin of something under £300,000. If at the end of the year you find yourselves with one, two, or three millions more than you estimated, that is because you placed the produce of the year's revenue too low and the expenditure too high. You can manufacture a surplus to any extent by that process, but if your Estimates are reasonably correct you ought never to exceed, say half a million surplus. I find last year, and I have pointed it out—not blaming the Chancellor of the Exchequer particularly, for it is an established habit—that the Estimate of stamps was a great deal too low. This
  1884
  year we find the revenue from stamps exceeding the Estimate by nearly half a million, and there is the same thing with the income tax—an excess of half a million or thereabouts.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: On enormous sums.
  SIR W. HARCOUT: Yes, but you are habitually dealing with these sums. Great credit is due to the permanent officials for making as close an Estimate as they can, but to be out by half a million under one head is more than ought to be reasonably expected. But what is the consequence? You levy on the year, it may be, a million or more more than you want, and then you say what a fine surplus; but in my opinion it is not a sound system, and a departure from the principle that you should only ask in the year for what is wanted in the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer parted with two millions, I thought unwisely, appropriated for the reduction of the Debt, but by this system of miscalculated Estimates we get the money back again, and so, like Penelope, he does at one time what he undoes at another. While he makes his Estimate on the assumption that the two millions are no longer to, be appropriated to the Debt, he raises the money all the same through the system of incorrect Estimates, and it goes to the liquidation of the Debt. So far as it results in this manner I am glad, but surely this is not the proper way in which it should be done. It ought to be done by correct Estimates of revenue and expenditure. I only say this by way of parenthesis, because I am speaking of the Budget proposals for the coming year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with the liquidation of the debt; he cannot hope always to recover in the same manner the two millions he has given away. But we find in the National Debt Bill he proposes to make away with a third million, practically making three millions, that is, what he has gained from the reduction of the interests on the Debt. But for the Bill as the law stands this million would have gone to the reduction of the Debt, as, of course, that would have constituted part of the Sinking Fund going to the reduction of the Debt. The result of the financial arrangement is that he practically diverts from the Fund for the reduction of the Debt three millions, which by law is appropriated

  1885
  to that purpose. That, I think, cannot be denied.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman will surely see that only two millions are diverted, the other million comes out of interest.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is really only a matter of phraseology. In the National Debt Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the permanent charge for the reduction of the Debt shall be £25,000,000 instead of £26,000,000, and that "25" shall be substituted for "26" in Section 1 of the Sinking Fund Act.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me interrupting, but I have no opportunity of reply. He states that the Sinking Fund is £26,000,000, but that is a fallacy. £26,000,000 is not the Sinking Fund, it includes both the Sinking Fund and the interest. It is unfair, I think, to make the statement that a million is withdrawn from the payment of the Debt, while clearly that million comes from the saving in interest.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It really is only a question of phrasing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that if he had not proposed a special Act that million would have gone to the reduction of the Debt. I do not care how you put it, that is the effect. I will describe it in any form of words you may prefer. It is necessary to legislate to prevent the money going as it would have gone to the liquidation of the Debt. I only draw attention to this to show what is the operation of this inflated expenditure on the financial condition and taxation of the country. I show, first, that you have by your policy diverted this amount from the sinking Fund. I give you credit, of course, for having diminished the interest on the Debt. I do not dispute that for a moment. One of the beneficial consequences of that reduction ought to have been either lowering of taxation or redemption of more debt. Instead of that, however, three millions a year, which would otherwise have diminished the Debt, have not gone to the benefit of the taxpayer. On the contrary, increased taxation in the form of Death Duties and beer tax is being levied. I wish to be fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I mention, of course, that besides
  1886
  increased expenditure, there has been contribution to local taxation; but this does not alter the fact that you had this year a good surplus, from which we ought to have expected relief from taxation, and certainly no diversion from the fund for the reduction of debt which had accrued from the conversion of interest. Instead of that you are obliged to call on the House for additional taxation, and that is simply accounted for by the enormous increase made in the expenditure of the country. With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester, I can only say that I have voted, and shall on every occasion vote, against the additional taxation. But as the money has to be found, I could not vote for striking off four or four and a half millions of taxation on this occasion, and can, therefore, not vote with my hon. Friend, as I am not prepared to suggest an alternative tax. Nor do I think that this is a fitting opportunity for raising those larger questions with respect to the incidence of taxation which my hon. Friend has raised. They are most important questions, such as are going to command the keenest interest in the future. There is no doubt the charges that have been made in the electoral conditions of this country, the greater voice given to the humbler classes of the community will inevitably lead to that voice being heard on the subject of relative taxation. It is right that should be so; it is one of the objects with which the electoral extension was made. I hope these matters will be approached in a reasonable and prudent spirit. I have never seen any indication myself on the part of any great number of the people of dealing with the subject in other than a reasonable manner. I have no hesitation myself in expressing the opinion that realized property does not bear a fair share of taxation. I believe that, without laying down any proposition that there should be any class of the community exempt from contribution to the public burden. I do not contend that at all; but I do say, so far as I have considered the subject, that I think realized property ought to bear a larger share than it does at present. I will not go further into this question now; it is one that will have to be carefully considered. The people of this country will make

  1887
  themselves heard on the question, and I expect that they will demand that the expenditure on armaments shall be less extravagant than it is at present. The Government will hereafter have to reconsider our system of taxation, and a good deal will have to be done in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Leicester so as to give relief to all classes of taxpayers in the country.
  *MR. HALLEY STEWART: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the extreme cases dealt with by the mover of the Resolution as if they formed the main subject matter of the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton). My hon. Friend pleaded for those whose incomes range from 20s. to 25s. a week, but in Lincolnshire and among my constituents the average wage of the agricultural labourer is only 12s. a week, and I see from the Registrar General's Report that there are other counties where the average is only 9s. a week. On incomes such as these hon. Members can hardly imagine what the pressure of a 6d. tea tax is. There has been a fall in the price of tea, but we are not indebted to the Government for that, and the incidence of the duty remains the same. Passing through a town in Lincolnshire last week, I saw tea advertized at a shilling a pound, and it was sold by the Mayor of the borough. It is certain that that tea did not cost him more than 4d. a pound, and every pound had to bear 6d. duty. Tea is quoted in the market at 4d. a pound. The House will realize the enormous inequality of the impost. The tea of the rich man, at 2s. or 2s. 6d. a pound, pays 6d., and the poor man's tea, at 4d., equally pays 6d.; the first is taxed 20 to 25 per cent, the latter 150 per cent! Let the House realize the weight of this burden upon those who, with wife and family, have to make both ends meet on 1s. 6d. per day wages. "Every man must pay something," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "for the luxury of Government." Yes, but the working man does pay something. He gives his toil. What more can a man give to the service of his country? When a man rises at five o'clock in the morning and works until six in the evening, is not that enough service? Do you think it just to exact 3d. or 4d. a week besides from the man
  1888
  who struggles to bring up his family on 9s. a week? The exigencies of the Budget—the exigencies of Party—today may require assent to this Tea Duty; but I am sure that many who will vote for this Tea Duty are really opposed to it. I believe the time is coming when Members opposite instead of blindly sustaining the Government of the day, will vote according to their convictions and exercise pressure upon them with as good an influence as they have done against the Sugar Convention.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Taxes, though evils, must be levied on somebody, and I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that everybody who has a vote ought to contribute something to taxation. Taxation and representation ought to go together if we are to have any sound system of financial Government here. But, admitting that we have to levy taxes and that every person ought to pay in some sort of way towards the Revenue of the country, the question is, whether this in itself is a fair tax? I deny that the Tea Duty is a fair tax. In your income tax, whoever dreamt of charging the same amount on all income taxes, whether large or small? You have an inhabited house tax, but whoever would dream of charging the same amount on a palace and a hovel? My main complaint of this tax is that it is an ad valorem on tea, and that you make the poor man pay a certain sum of money, which, in comparison with his income, is far greater than the sum you make the rich man pay, by your income tax and your other taxes. You charge a higher rate to the poor man than to the rich man, because, whilst the poor man pays, say, only 1s. a pound for his tea and the rich man 2s., the duty is the same on each description. And yet the poor man and the rich man drink about the same amount of tea, for though the rich man can afford any quantity, he cannot drink beyond the amount which fills him. This tax is, to all intents and purposes, a poll tax on all individuals, the poor man getting less for his money than the rich man. It is said it would be impossible to do away with the tax, and it is asked "If we abolish this, where are we to raise the money? "Well, I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I as a Member of the Opposition have only to express my opinion when I object to a

  1889
  certain method of raising money, and it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's duty to find means for raising revenue which are satisfactory to all parties in the House. I dare say the duty is a difficult one to perform, but that is why we get a clever man as Chancellor of of the Exchequer. We poor men are only here to protest against what we think unfair. We have heard the question again and again, when it has been proposed to do away with a tax, "Oh, but where are we to get the money?" You had a tax on sugar; you abolished it, and yet you managed to get the money somewhere else. You have abolished other taxes, and yet have always managed to recoup yourselves. We want to lay down the principle that we shall have a tax that will net every one according to his means, and yet place no tax on the necessaries of life. No one would think nowadays of putting a tax on bread, because it is a necessary of life, and I think that tea may be regarded as equally a necessary. We are told that this tax has not been altered for a long while, but that is no reason why it should never be altered. It is quite true as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that Chancellors of the Exchequer come and go, and, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, personally, I hope he himself may soon go — but that is no reason why this objectionable tax should go on for ever. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby supports the tax and says he must vote for it, because we have agreed to the expenditure, and he cannot at a moment's notice say where the money is to be taken from if not from the Tea Duty. That is his position as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. But we, who are more independent, are not bound by such ties. We say we think the tax unjust, and therefore we will vote with the hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Amendment. The Amendment does not say that the duty should be altogether abolished, so that those who object to the amount can vote for it. Those who, like myself, object to the whole tax, can likewise vote for it, and also those who object to it being an ad valorem duty. Personally I object to the duty on all these grounds, and therefore have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I entirely agree that indirect taxation presses very unfairly on the poor, but I think that if this tax were removed it would lead to increased intemperance in tea which would be used by the poorer classes in the place of milk in the bringing up of the young. In my opinion relief ought rather to be given to currants and raisins, which are almost entirely consumed by the poor. With regard to the Death Duties, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give hon. Members an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the question of the duty on personalty. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that anomalies still exist in his proposals, but I take it that I should be ruled out of order if I were to move to add to the burden of one particular class, the duty of proposing increase of taxation resting entirely with the Government.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I wish to say one or two words on the subject brought up by the hon. Gentleman opposite, though I do not at all agree with him in the necessity or desirability of doing away with the duty on tea. I should say that those who go into the general subject of taxation will agree that the poorer classes do pay a larger amount in proportion to their earnings than the richer classes. This is in no way a party question, but a question which must be considered before very long I hope that for the simple reason that the temperance habits of the people are growing, it will before long become absolutely necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to overhaul and rearrange the general model of his Budget. The man earning 10s. or 15s. a week who takes a moderate amount of beer, tea, and tobacco in proportion to his earnings pays a larger amount in the shape of Imperial taxes than the richer man, and the man who is at the bottom of the income tax scale is more nipped than those higher up. I do hope the time will come when we shall be able to readjust these duties and taxes in a more satisfactory manner. I maintain that it is not just that the man who earns £40 a year or 15s. a week should pay more per £ of his earnings than the man who earns £1,000, £2,000, or £3,000 a year. On a previous occasion I was reported as having spoken in favour of a graduated, rising income tax. I did not do so.

  1891
  Whether or not it will ever be proposed it is not for me to say; but this I do assert, that a graduated income tax going the other way is very unfair to the poor, and I therefore hope that before long the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to an adjustment of the incidence of taxation fairer to the poorer classes than it is at the present time.
  The House divided. — Ayes, 216; Noes, 121.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I desire to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the agreement which was arrived at three years ago, after a discussion in the House, that all packets of adulterated coffee should be marked outside as adulterated. There is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that this precaution is not enough, but that the amount of the adulteration ought also to be marked outside the packets. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seriously take the matter into consideration before next year.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, rather than for me, but I will look into it.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish to express my deep regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in casting about for the means of raising the money necessary to make provision for the National Defences, should have placed the burden upon the two interests which are the least capable of bearing attack. The Death Duties will form an additional duty upon land, and the Beer Duty, although it may fall immediately on the brewers, will ultimately affect the growers of barley. Under these circumstances I think that this is a vexatious tax, because it is not necessary for raising the money wanted by the Chancellor of Exchequer. The whole sum the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise is £300,000, and I think there was much force in the remark of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) that the right hon. Gentleman has been in the habit of under estimating his surplus. I think it would have been better if he had been a little more sanguine on this occasion,
  1892
  and that he had over rather than under estimated. There are two or three courses which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have taken, any one of which would have avoided the agitation to which his present proposals have given rise. I contend that with regard to the whole of this taxation it was a most legitimate opportunity for having recourse to the Sinking Fund, because the purpose is a national one. I believe that posterity would be better off if it had to pay off a little more debt, rather than bear the additional burdens which would be imposed on them if we were unfortunately defeated in a great war. As to the Beer Duty, there was another course open to the right hon. Gentleman which I have not heard indicated, and. that was to have recourse to the imposition of a registration fee of 1s. per quarter on imported corn. This fee, which was abolished in 1863, was a source of considerable revenue, while its incidence on the individual taxpayer was very small indeed. By its aid the Chancellor of the Exchequer would raise a large sum, and at the same time infringe no sacred principle of the fiscal policy. Another course which was open to the right hon. Gentleman was to impose an Import Duty on foreign hops and barley. Free traders complain that the imposition of an Import Duty increases the price of the article to the consumer, but that argument cannot be used in this case because the price of beer would remain the same even if an Import Duty were imposed upon foreign hops and barley. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken that course he would have avoided the dissatisfaction and irritation which have been caused by the present proposal, and he would have raised a sufficient sum of money without the necessity of imposing an additional farthing of taxation. A small Import Duty upon foreign hops would raise more than £300,000. In the last place the right hon. Gentleman would have given a helping hand to a dying British industry—namely, the growth of hops.
  *MR. S. BUXTON: I am afraid that the principles advocated by the hon. Gentleman will not commend themselves either to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the bulk of hon. Members in this House. He desires to suspend the Sinking Fund

  1893
  and to put a Protective Duty on corn and hops. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: "No."] Well, upon barley. I know that he says the duty is not a Protective Duty, but I understand that he wishes to place an Import Duty upon two articles of consumption without placing an equivalent Excise Duty upon the same articles; and that I must call a Protective Duty. I believe that the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as he proposes to provide for the national defences by taxation have met with pretty general approval. I doubt, with the exception of the brewers themselves, whether anyone objects to the very small increase in the Beer Duty. It has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) in his comparison of the taxation upon tea and beer that the taxation upon beer, considering that beer is an intoxicant, as compared with the taxation upon tea is very light indeed. And whether or no the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make out his case in regard to "specific gravity," he can at least plead necessity—that he wants the money. As to the further increase of the Death Duties there is little difference of opinion on either side of the House in regard to the general principle involved, that considererable taxation should be raised from them. I and his hon. Friends, however, are by no means satisfied with the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as carried out in the Bill, that realty will in any way contribute its proper proportion to the taxation of the country. There are three ways in which realty gains an advantage over personalty. In the first place, while the whole estate in regard to personalty is considered, only the actual succession of the individual is taken in regard to realty. In the second place the Succession Duty can be paid in four half-yearly instalments, and practically the second half is not due for four years after the death of the testator. Indeed, five-eighths of the whole Succession Duty is not payable until four years after it is due, while in the case of personalty it has to be paid at the moment. Then the Bill, as drafted, will, I understand, give realty a great advantage over personalty in the mode in which the capital value is assessed. By Clause 6 of the Bill the capital value is to be based solely on the net annual value. I should be glad to learn definitely
  1894
  from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the capital value is to be appreciated by considering the net annual value alone. If that is so, then in a large number of estates of very great capital value, but very little annual rental value, the Succession Duty charged will be something infinitesimal compared with the permanent value. I have a large estate in my mind of which the net annual value is almost nothing—only some £200 or £300 a year—and yet it is a now valuable estate the saleable value of which is something like £200,000 or £300,000. Is the market value not to be taken into account, and is the estate to he charged merely on the annual rental value? As I understand the Bill, also, the calculation of the rental is not to be taken as if it were a permanent, fixed annual rent, but as though it were merely a case of leasehold, to be calculated at the outside as lasting 95 years. In order to ascertain the capital value of such an annuity we are referred to the Succession Duty Act of 1853. The total value of £100 rental is there capitalized at a maximum value of 24 1–3 years' purchase; but will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer assent to the proposition that much land in this country—especially luxurious estates, or estates that some day will be suitable for building purposes—is bought and sold at an infinitely higher value than 24 1–3 years' purchase? Some estates, indeed, are bought at 33 years' purchase, some even at 50, and yet in this case the maximum value upon which an estate can be charged is 23 or 24 years' purchase. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to arrive at the value of estates the capital value of which upon the rent is infinitesimal, whereas the real capital value is very considerable? The hon. Member for Faversham suggested that instead of further taxing beer that a further encroachment should be made on the sinking Fund. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already gone much too far in that matter, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not take the advice of the hon. Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the whole of the objection urged by many hon. Members to his proposal for dealing with the Sinking Fund this year is founded on

  1895
  the fallacy that in their opinion the Sinking Fund is a fixed annual amount, whereas it is no such thing. No one, so far as I know, made any such assertion. Everyone knows perfectly well that the essence of the so-called new Sinking Fund is not that it is a fixed annual amount, but that it is an increasing annual portion of the fixed Debt charge, which is applied to the redemption of Debt as savings are realized. The point of the Sinking Fund is that every saving effected is to go to the further reduction of Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in carrying out his financial proposals, has twice during the last three years infringed on the Sinking Fund. In 1887 he did not actually infringe on the principle but he reduced its effective by no less than £2,000,000 a year, and now he is doing a still worse thing. For the first time since it was instituted, the principle of the Sinking Fund has been infringed, the principle that every saving within the annual fixed charged, should be applied to the further reduction of Debt. He has reduced the amount this country is annually to pay towards the redemption of Debt to the lowest sum it has reached during the last 80 years. He has reduced it to a figure less by £4,000,000, than 30 years ago; to a figure much less than what our fathers paid when they were bearing an infinitely greater load of taxation, and when the income tax was much higher than at present. He has reduced the Sinking Fund by no less than £3,000,000 a year; and this he has not done in order to carry our fiscal reforms, but simply and solely to reduce the income tax by 2d. in the pound; and by so doing he has rendered future fiscal reforms much more difficult. He knew very well that one of the most popular things a Chancellor of the Exchequer could do with the taxpayer was to reduce his income-tax.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: It is the least popular.
  MR. BUXTON: It was most popular with the supporters of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and certainly more popular than imposing or maintaining taxation for Debt purposes. I fear that it is but beating the air in these days to advocate the more rapid reduction of the National Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day spoke of our
  1896
  Debt as now being under £700,000,000; but he forgot to add the £36,000,000 of Debt which last year he transferred from one account to another. Such a Debt as this, which is the largest National Debt except that of France, ought to be a subject of great anxiety to the country. Taking it all round, we are reducing it very slowly. In the last 30 years we have reduced it by something like £100,000,000 only, and he would be a bold man who, in the present state of European politics, will prophecy that it will be reduced by as large a sum in the next 30 years. The right hon. Member for Derby has shown that so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, he is in the habit of under estimating the revenue. Any large surplus at the end of the year in the revenue only indicates that he has made a miscalculation, while any reduction in expenditure is due to his colleagues. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who relies upon these amounts of surplus as justifying him in the reduction of the Sinking Fund, would look back a few years, he would find that at the end, including his own years of office, there was on the aggregate number of years, not a surplus, but a deficit. The truth is that the only mode in which we can hope to reduce the Debt is by applying an annual sum for that purpose. There is one great danger which this country has to look forward to, and that is the competion of America in the markets of the world when that country adopts the principles of free trade. Ultimately, it is certain that America will abolish her protective duties, and we who are now able to compete with every other nation will then have a great commercial rival who will have got rid of her debt, who has no great expenditure on army and navy, and who has every physical advantage which we have, and many which we lack. There will then be the greatest possible danger of this country losing its commercial supremacy. In that state of things our National Debt would be a very serious hindrance, and it is to be regretted that two of the principal financial acts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be to infringe upon the Sinking Fund, and to reduce by a large sum the annual amount we are paying towards the reduction of the National Debt.
  *COLONEL ANSTRUTHER: The beer tax must necessarily fall to a greater or lesser extent upon the industry that is least able to bear it—the barley growers of the country. Farmers in arable districts find that at present prices they cannot grow wheat at a profit, but they do look to some small margin of recompense from their barley crop. Now, hon. Gentlemen know well, that it is these very farmers in arable districts who have suffered most severely from the agricultural depression, and, moreover, they have not reaped any advantage from the revival of trade. On this account, if for no other, they especially deserve the sympathy of this House, and they are the last class to have any further taxation placed upon them. The increase of the duty caused by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lower the alcoholic standard of the beer will undoubtedly cause the brewers to use less malt, and it has already caused a widespread feeling of alarm among the farmers of the Eastern Counties. In this way the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although no doubt he thought he was taxing a class who could afford it, is also taxing another class who cannot afford to pay. I hope that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way clear to raise this sum of £300,000 by some other method, he will be able to assure the agricultural interest that it is merely a temporary tax, and that he will remove it at the first opportunity which offers.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I should like to say a word upon the subject which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton). I fully agree with what he has said in regard to the reduction of the National Debt, and, looking to the future of this country and of America, I think it would have been wiser this year, instead of reducing the Sinking Fund, to have left it as it was. I considered that the saving to the country from the reduction of the interest on the National Debt would have been very well applied in reducing the Debt itself. In the event of war, or when America becomes a free trade country, I have no doubt whatever that we shall find ourselves so heavily handicapped by our enormous debt and heavy expenditure
  1898
  in the shape of taxation, that it will be almost impossible to compete with the United States. With regard to the Income Tax, I have, on several occasions during the last three or four years, brought the question of the mode of collecting the tax before the House. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will this year, as he promised some years ago, be able to alter the whole system of assessments and appeals and the mode of payment for the collection of Income Tax by poundage. Owing to the present system of collection, the tax is not always one upon net income. In times of declining trade there is no doubt that the system of payment on the three years' average earnings bears extremely hard on small tradesmen. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that he does look forward to some system which will enable him to do away with the anomalies of this tax. My complaint is that of late years the Income Tax Assessor, instead of taking into account the distressed circumstances of the payers of Income Tax, has been engaged in making the screw tighter. No doubt it is only right that a man should pay upon his full income, but there are hardships which do arise in connection with this tax which render: it exceedingly unpopular, and which might and ought to be removed.
  *SIR E. BIRKBECK: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member in the expression of opinion as to an Import Duty on foreign barley, but I do wish to enter my protest against the proposal for an increased duty on beer, and I do so on behalf of the farmers of East Anglia. They object entirely to the imposition of a tax on the produce of the land, which comes in about the worst of the ten years of depression which they have experienced. They object to the proposal also that this tax is to be allowed to go on for seven years. The Government have described this tax as a homœpathic dose, but I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen that it will most seriously affect the barley growers. There are many hon. Members, representing county constituencies where they do not grow barley, who will not consider the matter of any moment; but, in those parts where they do grow barley, it is a subject of very great

  1899
  importance. I am confident that if every Member of the Cabinet farmed a thousand acres of land in a barley growing district, or if Sir Algernon West had a thousand acres of barley, this tax would never have been imposed. I can assure my right hon. Friend that had Mr. Clare Sewell Read been in the House he would have spoken in no unmeasured terms upon this question. I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us the assurance that this is to be a tax limited to one year. If not, then I, for one, shall place an Amendment on the Paper restricting the proposal to one year.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I waited to see whether any hon. Member would rise, but as no one has done so, I may assume that I have heard all the objections to the Budget before us. My hon. Friend the Member for North Islington referred to a subject in which I take considerable interest—namely, the manner in which our income tax collectors are paid. As a matter of fact no officer in the service of the Inland Revenue is paid by poundage at all; and in the case of local collectors, where they are paid by poundage, the localities have the removal of the grievance in their own hands, but the desire to maintain patronage seems to outweigh the desire to protect the income taxpayers. I do not give up the hope that it may be possible to deal with this matter when opportunity offers. Several of my hon. Friends have suggested that, instead of fresh taxation, I should have made another inroad on the Sinking Fund; but the observations of several others would lead to the conclusion that I had already gone too far in that direction. The hon. Member (Mr. S. Buxton) has just put forward the view that our Debt is dangerously large, but I would point out that while our Debt is large the interest upon it is less than that of any other country.
  MR. S. BUXTON: Not than America.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I think that on the whole Debt it is. America is able to borrow part at 3 per cent, but other portions of her Debt still continue at higher rates of interest. The hon. Member will remember that it is not only the capital amount of the Debt, but the burden of the Debt which has to be taken into consideration. The hon.
  1900
  Member suggests that our Debt charge is less than it used to be, and that it ought to be greater. Well, if we have reduced the interest, surely that is one reason for our Debt charge being so much less. We have been at work for many years reducing not only the total amount, but the rate of interest of the Debt, and therefore it is natural that the total Debt charge also should be reduced. The hon. Member thinks it a fair description of what I have been able to do with regard to the Debt to say that my two performances have been to withdraw two millions from the Sinking Fund, and I forget what the other performance was, but certainly it was not the conversion of the Debt. The fact that I have managed to convert 500 millions from 3 to 2¾ per cent is a matter of no importance whatever in his eyes.
  *MR. S. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend will not do me the injustice of misrepresenting what I said with regard to the Sinking Fund. No one on this side of the House forgets to appreciate the very great financial operation of the conversion of the Debt, but I was speaking simply of the infringement on the Sinking Fund.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member has perhaps not sufficient experience of the House to be perfectly aware of the effect of what he said. The hon. Member said, practically, that my Budgets would be remembered, for two performances, of which the conversion of the Debt was certainly not one. Had his words been uttered in Poplar, they would have been taken in their literal sense, and not as he interprets them. But while I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Poplar in his somewhat extreme views as to the National Debt, I should be unwilling to diminish further the amount of the Sinking Fund; and as we have undertaken a heavy extra expenditure it seems to me right that some portion, at all events, should be raised by the present generation. My hon. Friend says that future generations will derive the benefit, but I am not sure that future generations will not have to do what we are doing now. However that may be, the Government seem to have taken a fair middle course by imposing the chief part, but not the whole, upon the present generation. The hon. Member for

  1901
  Poplar asked me a question with regard to the principal value. The hon. Member has managed to make his speech on this point at the present stage of this Bill, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had indicated that it would be most convenient that the matter should be discussed at another stage. I suppose the hon. Member was perfectly within his right in so doing, but I am sorry that the Leaders of the Opposition were not in their places when he made his speech, to have heard from him his view of how the principal value should be taken. He stated correctly enough that the maximum principal value of real property, according to the Bill, was 24½times the annual value. He was dissatisfied with that because some property may be sold at 33 years' purchase. He did not remember that this proposal of putting the maximum at 24½ times the annual value was taken from the very proposal of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1885. That proposal took the principal value in the same way, and certainly I do not propose to suggest any more oppressive way of estimating the principal value upon property than that of my predecessor dealing with this same question. I have yet to reply to the remarks of my hon. Friend behind me on the subject of the Beer Duty. Of course I regret the great anxiety excited by this proposal. I regret that, because a tax of 3d., or not quite as much, is to be put on every 36 gallons of beer, the idea has got abroad that the consequences will be disastrous to barley growers throughout the country. The idea comes from a much larger increase—that of 1s. suggested in 1885 whereas now it is only 3d. It is said that by this addition of 3d. the barley growers will be placed at a very great disadvantage. I can only say to those hon. Members who represent the views of barley growers that I feel convinced that is an anxiety which they need not entertain. What does this theory of the great danger to barley-growers from this small tax involve? It involves the assumption that the brewers have got it in their power to pay what they like for the barley which they buy. I have asked this of the brewers, and I ask this of you, "If the brewers are in that
  1902
  position that they can dictate terms to both the consumer and the barley grower, and that they can threaten the grower of barley that, if the Government puts the slightest additional tax upon beer, they will pay so much less for barley, why do they not do that now?" If it were contended that there was no margin of reasonable profit between the present price of beer and the cost of that beer, I admit at once that the tax would have to come either from the consumer or the producer, but it would be a hold assertion that the margin of profit in the case of beer is as narrow as this. When it is said the margin of profit is so small that the brewers must throw this extra tax on the barley growers, I ask the House to take the case of sugar. When sugar rose the brewers might at once have said, "Now that the price of sugar has increased we shall immediately begin to pay less to the growers of barley, because we cannot afford to lose the difference." This is a matter in regard to which I am afraid I shall never be able to persuade the barley growers or brewers, but, as I have said, I most distinctly assert on behalf of the Government, that there is in our opinion no reason why this additional tax on beer should affect the barley growers in such a manner as their friends in this House seem to think. At the same time, I do not think there is any other tax that could be imposed, which, would upon the whole, be fairer, although I am fully aware that this tax, like every other, must lead to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and friction. The hon. Gentleman near me thinks it might be possible to avoid raising this sum of £300,000 by running the risk of not having a surplus this year; while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and other hon. Members have said—I think the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton) took that position—that we are wrong in making estimates that will leave us with considerable surpluses. I, for one, dispute that position, and say that it involves a most dangerous doctrine. If we were to cut our estimates too fine, we should run the risk of finding ourselves with a deficit, and with a tax revenue of £70,000,000. What we have provided is, after all, a very small margin indeed, when we consider the vast num-

  1903
  ber of possible accidents. To avoid the risk of a deficit, it is absolutely necessary that we should be exceedingly careful. I cannot accept the view of my hon. Friend behind me that we can afford to run the risk of having a deficit; nor do I think it would be a proper course if we were to ask for the whole of the proposed increase of taxation from realized property alone, or from any other single source. It has been held that when there is a considerable remission of taxation some relief should be given to all classes, and also, when new taxes have been proposed, it has been considered sound and conservative to make more than one interest contribute. These are the explanations I have to offer with regard to a tax which has caused some anxiety to the Friends of the Government, but I may add that in all the imposts under the Bill the Government have endeavoured to observe justice between various classes.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered ones point raised by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) with reference to the system of three years' average on the collection of income tax on business incomes. Formerly people engaged in business used to pay on the average of three years, and if the current year were lower than the average the payment would be proportionately reduced; whereas, under the present system as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, personsin business often are obliged to pay income tax on profits they have not earned. This is felt to be a considerable hardship, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the point in the course of the ensuing year. I believe the change was made without anyone interested in it having the least idea of what was being done, and while I do not complain of the mode in which the Bill has been drawn I would point out that it has to be read along with other Acts, and the process is so complicated that it is almost impossible to understand the clauses by their own context. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will consider the point when he will be sure to see what amount of justice it will be necessary to render. While I am on my legs I may also say a few words with regard to
  1904
  what has fallen from the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sidney Buxton) as to the Sinking Fund, because I think that in strict justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are bound to admit that as much will be done now as before the alteration of the interest on the National Debt, and I think the hon. Member for Poplar has hardly appreciated how much we are indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for the Treasury in resisting claims on the public purse, and thus securing a surplus. Still I cannot help regretting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to do more towards the reduction of the National Debt. With regard to the questions affecting farmers, there is one point I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider. Hon. Members will see from the 19th Clause of the Bill, which deals with the income tax, that the English farmers will have to pay a duty of 3d., while the Scotch and Irish farmers will only have to pay 2¼d. I do not see why English farmers should have have to pay a higher rate of income tax than those engaged in business of the same kind in other parts of the kingdom; and I think it will be well worth the while of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some future occasion to consider whether it would not be right to make the rate in all parts of the kingdom the same.
  *MR. C. GRAY: Although I am very sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have proposed to increase the beer tax, I do not take, quite so gloomy a view of that proposal as to the effect it will have on the East Anglian barley growers as is taken by some of my hon. Friends behind me. At the same time, I wish the right hon. Gentleman had only asked us to support the proposal for one year instead of seven. There are many different opinions on this side of the House as to whether it will or will not affect the interests of the English barley growers, and I think it better that we should not be committed to an uncertainty for seven years. The right hon. Gentleman has said a rise of 3d. per barrel could not be a very serious question, but if a barrel of beer is brewed from two bushels of malt that would mean a tax of 1s. a quarter on the barley, and that would be a very large sum indeed. There are very few

  1905
  of us who make 1s. a quarter profit on on our barley; we have not done so for the last two or three years, and if we had to pay 1s. a quarter on the produce during that time it would have taken away all our profits. I quite understand that those who are not farmers may look on 3d. a barrel as a trivial sum, and I do not mean to say that I anticipate the proposal will make a difference of a whole shilling per quarter, but I think it would be a very unpopular tax, and even if it be considered only a straw on the back of the British farmer, I regard it as the last straw that can be placed on that already almost broken back.
  SIR R. PAGET: I wish to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the income tax that there are strong claims upon his consideration with regard to the incidence of that tax—I allude to the way in which it presses on the owners of real property, whether houses or land. The Budget of last year, so far as it affected real property, was a Budget of readjustment; but in the present Budget I see no readjustment whatever. We do not complain that special circumstances make it necessary to impose a duty which brings thoroughly within its purview all classes of property, real and personal; but I do hope that the readjustment of taxation is only postponed for the present, and that in years to come we may not be disappointed in seeing readjustment carried still further, considering the necessity there is for striking an equilibrium in this matter. One more word. I must express my regret that circumstances prevented the Chancellor of the Exchequer from realizing the hope which he held out to us last year, that we should receive £800,000 in aid of local taxation from the wheel and horse tax. I will not enter into the question of the desirability of the tax itself, but I will express a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider this subject again in future Budgets. I am not one of those who take exception to the present Budget. I only look upon it as still leaving the equilibrium to be restored.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for London University, I may say that objection has been taken by high authorities to the system upon which the assess-
  1906
  ments of business incomes to the income tax are made, and I will take care that it is carefully looked into. I will also look into the question of the position of the English farmer, as compared with that of the Irish and Scotch farmer. I have already stated to the House that I do not wish a single farmer to pay income tax on more than the actual income he earns. It is for that reason that farmers are now allowed to assess themselves under Schedule D. I can assure hon. Members that all their suggestions shall be carefully considered. Reviewing the discussion which has taken place, I find myself in this position:—I am asked to replace the Sinking Fund, in its original position, i.e., to give up £3,000,000 of Revenue available to meet the expenses of the year, to give £800,000 in aid of local taxation, not to impose a beer tax, or indeed any new tax, and nevertheless to conduct the present business of the country, and to provide for Naval Defence. These are the impressions which I derive from the present discussion, and I trust my hon. Friends will see in the large and incongruous demands which are made upon me some of the difficulties which Chancellors of the Exchequer have to face.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to morrow.

  NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. (No. 186.)
  Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Amendment I have to move is one of some importance, though, as it does not touch the principle of the Bill, I think it may be accepted by the noble Lord without substantially interfering with the object which he has in view. My proposal is to substitute the word "may" for "shall" in this clause, which, as it stands, imposes a statutory obligation to carry out the programme of the Bill—a programme extending over four years—and to carry it out exactly in the manner stated in the schedule as regards the class of vessel, the armaments, and the cost. It appears from the schedule and also from the statement made by the noble Lord

  1907
  that no fewer than 70 vessels are to be laid down precisely according to the schedule, and no discretion apparently is to be allowed to the Admiralty in future as to the types of vessel to be laid down. If they were to be laid down in the present financial year I would not make the objection, because they might be carried out without any substantial change. But I understand from the schedule that a considerable number of these vessels will b. laid down, not this year, but in the course of the next two years; indeed, I gather that 22 of them are to be so delayed, as the whole of the vessels cannot possibly all be laid down at once. Now, in regard to the 22 vessels which cannot be laid down until after the expiration of two years, it does seem to me to be absurd that so long in advance we should prescribe by Act of Parliament the exact type of vessel and the size and nature of the armament. That is surely a novelty in procedure at the Admiralty and in the legislation of this House. These 22 vessels include one ironclad of 9,000 tons, two protected cruisers of 7,300 tons, ten cruisers of second class of 3,500 tons each, and eight torpedo vessels of 750 tons each. Between the present time and the day when they can possibly be laid down there may be considerable changes of view as to what class of vessel it is desirable to lay down. I will give a very striking illustration of the changes which might take place in something less than two years. In the latter part of the Session of 1887, I moved for a Royal Commission to consider the types of the ironclads which should be laid down in the future; but the noble Lord refused to give the Royal Commission, on the ground that the Government had determined not to lay down any iron-clads at all. He said he did not believe that in the future it would ever again be necessary to lay down any fresh iron-clads. On the 7th of March this year the noble Lord said that two years previously he had hoped that the Nile and Trafalgar would be the last battleships laid down in this country, as it then appeared that there was to be a general cessation of ironclad building, torpedo boats having come into use. The second European naval Power—France—had practically suspended her armour-clad building, and the other Powers had followed her example.
  1908
  But since then, owing to the development in quick firing guns and the use of new explosives, a general impetus had again been given to the building of ironclads, and consequently he (the noble Lord) came down to this House and made a proposal to lay down no fewer than 10 armoured vessels. Now I quote that simply to show what great changes may take place in the course of two years. It is unreasonable to expect that there will be no change of opinion in the course of the next two yearn which may prove of equal importance. I say it is not wise, neither is it prudent to decide, two years in advance, the type of vessels to be built either in our Dockyards or by contract. The effect would be to relieve the Admiralty of all responsibility, for when once these vessels are determined on the Admiralty, whatever may be the views of the members of the Board individually, will consider themselves bound by this Bill. I understand also that it is proposed to lay down 32 vessels by contract. Now, the noble Lord will find, when he comes to invite tenders, that it is not desirable in the present state of the shipbuilding business to contract for all these vessels at once; but the Act of Parliament will hardly give him any choice. Then if any change has to be' made a new Act will be necessary, and the House of Lords will obtain a control which they do not now possess over the naval expenditure of this country. Would it not be wise instead of imposing a statutory obligation on the noble Lord and the Admiralty, to give theta some discretion by inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" in this clause. There need be no fear that the money will not be spent eventually; indeed, the present Admiralty would be very different from its predecessors, and from every other public department, if it failed to spend the money voted. Again, in regard to the control which this proposal will give the House of Lords over the naval and military expenditure of this country, I contend it is contrary to all constitutional practice, for it has always rested solely with this House to determine what shall be the nature and extent of our naval and military expenditure. I believe we shall be acting more in accordance with constitutional practice by giving permissive powers in this clause instead of

  1909
  imposing a statutory obligation, because then the responsibility will rest with the Admiralty. The wisest course will be, while indicating in the schedule the class of vessels which the Government and the Admiralty now think may be prudently laid down to avoid imposing any statutory obligation on the Admiralty to carry out a specific programme, but to leave to them the responsibility in the future of determining whether it is wise and prudent when the time comes to build vessels of the class indicated in the schedule. I think the noble Lord may well accept my Amendment which is in accord with the policy he has proposed to the House, for while it will give him full power to act according to the Act of Parliament and its schedules, it will enable him, should circumstances arise hereafter which make it undesirable to carry out the Programme now laid down in its specific form, to make any necessary changes.
  Amendment proposed, "In page 1, line 25, to leave out, ninety-four,' and insert nine-six.'"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That 'ninety-four' stand part of the Clause."
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I believe there is a general impression among Members of this House that in an Act of Parliament the words "may" and "shall" are almost convertible terms. At any rate I have often heard that they have pretty much the same meaning, but in order to make it clear what we desire we have used the imperative mood and inserted the word shall." No doubt a statutory obligation is imposed by the Bill on the Admiralty; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was not without careful investigation as to the producing powers of the country that the Government took upon themselves this statutory obligation, and having so taken it upon themselves they think it undesirable that it should be optional on the part of any future Admiralty to vary the policy to which the Government are committed. The right hon. Gentleman argues that it is not business-like to lay down so many ships at one time. I quite agree with him that that would certainly be so if it were not that time was of primary importance. But we hold time to be of the utmost importance, and therefore deem it necessary to press forward the completion of
  1910
  the vessels. The number of vessels to be laid down this year is 52, and in subsequent years 18. I agree that in these days of change it is not desirable to decide long in advance the class of vessel to be built. But with respect to some of the ships, a discretion is reserved. All the ironclads with the exception of one will be laid down this year; and that one at the beginning of next year. As to the 18 vessels which are not to be laid down this year, five will be begun next year, ten the year after, and three the year after that. These are all of the smaller type, and no vessels of an experimental type are to be built. Thus far I believe we are on safe ground. The right hon. Gentleman also said that this Bill would give the House of Lords control over taxation. I do not agree with that. No doubt the House of Lords might throw out a Bill modifying this Bill; but they have no power with regard to expenditure which is decided by the annual Estimates. The Government have taken every precaution to secure the completion of the vessels, and I think the word "shall" is preferable to the word "may."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think that upon this occasion it is desirable for us to occupy the time of the House at any great length, but one objection to the whole proceeding is so strong that I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken an appropriate point. Now, there are two observations which I wish to make clear, and the first is this, that in my opinion the use of the word "shall" is altogether inconsistent with the proposal of the Government themselves, which is that, as regarded 11 millions, the whole expenditure is to depend upon the voting of money from year to year. At the same time Parliament is to enact without any qualification or reservation that in any contingency a certain number of ships shall be built. At the same time, it is provided that as regards one-half of the expenditure Parliament may say whether the "shall" shall be bonâ fide binding. This is not a Parliamentary or appropriate mode of proceeding. The word "shall" means "shall," and it is a strange and wholly unprecedented method of proceeding to say with one breath that a thing "shall" be done, and then, as to half that thing, to reserve

  1911
  liberty of action from year to year. The word "may" would be a sufficient indication of the present intention of the Government, and I therefore support my right hon. Friend's Amendment, though I should much prefer the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton—that the money should be voted from year to year. In taking this course, we are not desirous of securing any surreptitious advantage. The Government are well assured that they will be able to carry their proposal to spend this money. The noble Lord said there is great ambiguity about the use of the word "may" in Acts of Parliament, but so far as regards this particular Bill there would be no such ambiguity whatever. The substitution of the word "may" for "shall" would in no way weaken the proposal of the Goverment as it stands in the Bill as a whole, and it would be consistent in its application of the two portions of the money, whereas in the form in which it now stands it is inconsistent in its application to that part of the money which Parliament is to vote from year to year.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman goes to this, so far as a portion of the expenditure is concerned the word "may" will have all the effect of the word "shall." But the right hon. Gentleman has already explained to the Committee that he really desires to make a decided change in the character of the Bill, and to secure that the money shall be voted year by year. [Mr. GLADSTONE: By a subsequent Amendment.] And it is in the spirit of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton which is to follow that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian wishes to effect that change. It is on that account alone that the Government must insist on the retention of the word "shall." We desire to give emphasis to the purpose for which the Bill is framed which is to secure that a scheme which hangs together and which cannot be separated without injury to all its parts, shall be carried out in its entirety. Of course, it is open to Parliament, if it thinks fit, to refuse to vote that which is proposed annually to carry out that part of the programme which depends on annual Votes. But we hold the belief that the direction in the Bill when it becomes an
  1912
  Act will not be lightly overridden by Parliaments or Governments which may follow, and that therefore it is of the highest importance to the interests of the country that the plan shall be taken and carried into effect as a whole.
  *LORD C. BERESFORD: I have often heard the saying about driving a coach through an Act of Parliament. I conceive that nothing would be more easy than to effect such an operation as that, if we substituted the word "may" for "shall." I am glad that the Government insist on retaining the word "shall," because in days gone by curious things have happened from Party exigencies. On one occasion the item for the ammunition of certain guns which have been voted for the Fleet was struck out. It is to avoid that kind of proceeding that they ought to stick to the word "shall." It is a bad thing for the Services not to have a continuity of policy. Personally, I should have liked to see the clause made much stronger. I should like to see the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Lord of the Treasury put under some sort of contract with the people, so that if these ships fail, or are not ready at the stipulated time, they should both be hanged. We might then get direct responsibility in this matter. I am glad the Government intend to vote against the Amendment.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Since I spoke last, I have looked through the Acts directing work to be carried out, but I cannot find a single case in which the word "shall" has been used instead of the word "may." In the case of the Fortifications Act, of 1858, and also in the case of the construction of the naval docks and basins at Portsmouth and Chatham in 1859, "may" was used, and not "shall." Last year in the Act authorizing the construction of the Australian vessels, the word used was "may," and not "shall." Precedent, therefore, is in my favour.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to move to insert after the word "shall" in line 23, the words "so far as is practicable." I am afraid I shall not have the support of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford), because these words are to prevent the very thing he desires. If the clause remains as it is, the Ad-

  1913
  miralty will be guilty of an indictable offence if, through some mischance or no fault of their own, these vessels are not completed before the 1st of April, 1894. I will not enter into the question of the probability or otherwise of the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) being First Lord of the Admiralty in 1894, but assuming that he is, I should be sorry to see him and his colleagues in the position of being charged with an indictable offence. This is a pure question of drafting, and I think the noble Lord will see at once that they ought not to be required to do what may be found to be absolutely impossible.
  Amendment proposed, "Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after 'shall,' insert, 'so far as is practicable'" (Mr. H. Fowler).
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Of course, if it is impracticable it cannot be done.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: If it is not done, you commit an indictable offence.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: But I have no objection to the Amendement.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The object of the Amendment which I have now to move is to spread the building of a large number of these vessels over a somewhat longer period, and thus make it possible to avoid many of the ends which have been pointed out in the course of these debates. The First Lord of the Admiralty has more than once said that the proposal of the Government is to lay down no fewer than 70 vessels, of which 52 are to be taken in hand at once, 20 in the dockyards and 32 by contract. As I pointed out a few nights ago, no one has more frequently condemned the policy of laying down an enormous number of vessels at once than the noble Lord himself; and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. For wood) has gone the length of saying that the laying down of a very large number of vessels at one time is fraught with difficulty and danger. What the Admiralty now ask us to do is to run headlong into these difficulties and dangers—not only to lay down vessels by the dozen, but by the score. If there have been difficulties and dangers in this policy in the past, surely there is in
  1914
  the present. There is the greatest possible uncertainty with regard to the value of the types of many of these vessels. Not only is this a dangerous policy with respect to larger vessels like ironclads, but it is equally so with respect to cruisers. At this moment a great improvement is being effected in the speed of cruisers. Here is a striking illustration of how vessels are superseded almost before they are completed in the Estimates now before us. In 1885 four vessels of the Mersey type, of 4,000 tons displacement, were laid down with a speed of sixteen knots, and seventeen knots with a forced draught. In 1887, cruisers of another type, vessels of 3,400 tons were laid down, and they have a greater speed by two knots than the Mersey type of vessels, some of which are not even now completed. I have not the smallest doubt that in two or three years' time, we shall find it desirable to to lay down cruisers of greater speed than those the noble Lord proposes to lay down, and therefore we shall probably find ourselves possessed of forty or fifty vessels which have been superseded by other vessels. But there is another point which I would urge on the Government as a reason for not commencing all these vessels at once, and that is the state of the ship building trade. The noble Lord has told us he did not embark on this scheme without careful consideration of the state of the ship building trade, but I cannot but think that he has not been sufficiently informed on the subject. I undertake to say, from inquiries I have made, that there will be the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining proper firms to tender for the vesssels it is proposed to lay down by contract. It is proposed that 22 vessels with a tonnage of 160,000, should be laid down in private yards. Now what is the state of the ship, building trade? We all know that some years ago this trade was in a very depressed condition. Whereas, in 1883, vessels with a total tonage of 891,000, were built in private yards, in 1886 the tonage fell to 331,000. In 1888 there was a great demand for new ships, and in the course of the year 573,000 tons were built. I understand that every private yard is full of orders, and that there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining firms to tender for the building of

  1915
  private vessels, that in fact there are vessels with an aggregate of 1,000,000 tons in hand at the present moment. I assert, therefore, it will be impossible to go into the market and invite tenders for the 22 vessels with 160,000 tons without raising considerably the price of the vessels. I am told by many competent people that the price will probably rise something like 25 or 30 per cent. Not only so, but the present state of affairs will have its effect upon the vessels built in the dockyards. The vessels built there will require an enormous amount of material. I understand that four of the large type of ironclads which are to be built in the dockyards will each of them require no less an amount than 400,000 tons weight of armour plates. Now, if you go into private yards you will practically invite competition against the vessels which are building in your own dockyards, in respect of the armour plates, and also of other material. In that way too you will raise the price against yourselves. It appears to me, therefore, that from every point of view it would be far better to spread your shipbuilding over a somewhat longer time. What I suggest is that instead of building these vessels in four-and-a-half years as now specified in the Bill, you should not be required to complete them under six years. If you adopt my plan it will not be necessary to enter into contracts immediately, for all of the 22 vessels it is proposed to build them by contract. You will be able to defer commencing a certain number of these vessels for two years, some of them possibly for three years, and in the meantime you will be able to gain experience with regard to the value of the types of vessels you propose to build, and you will also be able to devote a great deal of the constructive talent of the Admiralty to the perfecting of the designs of the vessels to be laid down. You will, moreover, have the advantage of seeing what other Powers do in the same direction. As to the type of ironclad, I cannot think it is wise to lay down at once so many as eight ironclads of the largest class. I know there is very great difference of opinion amongst very competent men as to the value of vessels of 14,000 tons. Lord Armstrong has expressed the opinion
  1916
  that it would be far wiser to lay down vessels of a smaller type and with a greater speed, and I believe I am right in saying that the Barrow Shipbuilding Company, Limited, laid before the Admiralty plans of armour clad vessels of 3,500 tons, it being contended by the very able naval architect who advises that company that four vessels of this size can be built for the same price as one of the vessels of 14,000 tons, and that they would be of much greater value.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Who says that?
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir Nathaniel Barnaby. He is a naval architect who for many years advised the Admiralty with regard to vessels under construction, and his authority is deservedly very high. But the House will perhaps recollect that two years ago I moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the type of armour clad vessels which should be constructed, and I still think it is unfortunate the noble Lord resisted that Motion. If it were possible for the noble Lord to institute an inquiry within the next few months, at all events, as regards the vessels he proposes to lay down, and as to what types they should be, certainly it appears to me, in the present state of opinion, it would be most desirable to have such an inquiry, collecting the opinions of all competent men on the subject, before finally determining the types of vessels. All these considerations point to the expediency of extending over a somewhat longer period the programme proposed by the Bill. What would be the effect of spreading the programme over a period of six years instead of the four-and-a-half years proposed in the Bill. Dividing the proposed expenditure of ten millions over six years means an expenditure each year of 1,600,000, which is only £200,000 more than the annual payment now proposed to be spread over seven years. Adopt the principle of expenditure and payment over six years, and you avoid all those financial proposals in the Bill which are fraught with novelty and constitutional difficulty. It would be possible to pay for the vessels as they are built, making the payments equal in each of the six years—a far better plan, I think, than to spread the construction over four-

  1917
  and-a-half years and the payments over seven years. Under the present arrangement it is proposed to incur the expenditure but not to make the payment on the vessels of no less than £2,400,000 in the present year, next year £4,700,000, the third year £3,000,000, having very unequal payments over the term of years. I would suggest as an alternative spreading the building over a somewhat longer period, and spreading the payment equally over a term of years, instead of concentrating it in three or four years. It appears to me a preferable proposal to that in the Bill, both from an economic point of view, avoiding the necessity of throwing all the vessels on the trade at once for contract, and from a shipbuilding point of view, preventing the determining of the types of vessels, at the same time stereotyping the vessels of the Navy and throwing the cost on future years after the vessels are completed. The adoption of this plan would not be inconsistent with the main details of the Bill. I offer the Amendment as not in hostility to any of the main objects of the Bill, and it is quite consistent with all the noble Lord has said for the last two or three years as to increasing the strength of the Navy.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, to leave out "ninety-four" and insert "ninety-six." — (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That ninety-four ' stand part of the clause."
  Attention was called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present. The House was counted, and 40 Members were found to be present.
  *LORD C. BERESFORD: I think there are some tremendous objections to the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I would like to ask him this question: Does he regard the financial question of greater importance than the question of the safety of the Empire? I would also ask him whether he agrees that the standard of our fleet should be such as to enable us to defend the interests of the Empire against the fleets of two combined nations. If he does agree in that he must also agree that we cannot be too quick in running our fleet up to that
  1918
  standard. I have also shown the House that the proposal of my noble Friend (Lord G. Hamilton) does not come up to the standard which he acknowledges is desirable. The other night I proved conclusively that the First Lord was wrong in saying that the standard he desires would be necessarily arrived at when his programme is finished, because of scratching four ships off his list, as he has done on account of their being obsolete. He ought to have scratched off 18, some of which at the end of five years would be 32 years old. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says "take a little longer to build your ships"—
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I did not say that; I said, spread the building of these vessels over a longer period. Do not commence the building of so many of them at once.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Then we at once go back to the other question. What does the right hon. Gentleman consider the standard of the fleet? I entirely disagree with the right. hon. Gentleman. On many points I think the administration of my noble Friend (Lord G. Hamilton) cannot be too highly praised, but where he has made a mistake is in not allowing for the wastage of the fleet. In five or six years there may be some scare in Europe, and you will go through exactly the same thing again. I have clamoured and hallooed in order to get a business-like arrangement—namely, to fix a standard, and run your fleet up to it. If you do that the country knows what you are at. If you follow the present plan the country does not know what you are at. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), said a naval architect had stated his opinion that four ships of a certain tonnage, a certain armament and a certain price would be more useful for defending this Empire than one ship of large tonnage at the same price. I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think as he seemed to imply that I had sneered at Sir Nathaniel Barnaby as a professional man. I consider him a first class architect, but I do not consider him the kind of man to tell me, as a naval officer, what sort of ships I ought to have to fight with. My brother officers and I have to do the work and we know what kind of ship, we want to do it with.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee the limited nature of the Amendment moved. It proposes merely to substitute 1896 for 1894 as the time when these ships shall be completed.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Well Sir, I was arguing against what the right hon. Gentleman said. I hope the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) will insist upon furnishing these ships as soon as ever he can. They are necessary for the defence of our Empire, and I hope we shall not have the construction delayed for another two years.
  MR. COSSHAM: I support the Amendment, because, as we are going to do a bad thing, I should like to spread it over a longer period. I shall be very glad if we could reach a point at which we should have absolute safety, but I notice that every improvement made in the Army or Navy seems to render us less safe than we were before. It seems as if those who spend the money get up the scares for their own amusement. I think the time has come when we must protest against this useless and wasteful expenditure.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: When I brought this scheme before the House, I expressed a hope that it would be accepted as a whole. We propose to speed £21,500,000 in five years, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is to spread the expenditure over seven years.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I take the proposal of the Government as spreading over four-and-a half years, and I propose to spend it over six years.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: Six and a half years, I should say. Anyhow, it seems that there will be a difference of about four or five millions sterling in the amount spent in the first five years. Our proposal would be reduced by that amount, and a corresponding number of ships struck off our programme. We cannot assent to such a proposal. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the objections of putting down many ships at once. We have most carefully considered those objections. He is incorrect in assuming that a number of new ships have recently been given to the shipbuilding yards. There was a considerable spurt in shipbuilding last year, but the majority of ships in private yards are now approaching completion.
  1920
  We made careful inquiry also as to the capacity of this country to produce the heaviest armour plates, and I think I may say we have succeeded in making arrangements, assuming the House agrees to our proposal, which will enable us to get the plates when we require them. At present the number of ships we have in hand, and our liabilities in reference to incomplete ships, are less than they have been at any period for some years, and at the close of the present financial year we shall have only four ships and only one ironclad unfinished. I have a list of the number of armourclads that have been on the stocks in the last few years. In almost every year there were more than 10. The number rose to 13 in 1884–5. It was 13 in 1885–6, and 21 in 1886–7. It must be recollected that during the last few years we have deliberatety held our hand in regard to new ships, in order that we might complete the work we had left unfinished, and in order that we might obtain the fullest information in reference to the designs to be adopted. We cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. This is a five years' programme, and we cannot consent to having the period during which it is to be completed in any way altered.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The noble Lord has either misinterpreted or misstated my proposal. I do not propose to cut down the expenditure by five or six millions sterling, or to cut down the number of ships. All I propose is to spread the expenditure over six years instead of four and a half years, and the effect would be to obviate the necessity of laying down so many vessels immediately. The noble Lord has stated over and over again the objections to the laying down of so many vessels at once. Those objections seem to me conclusive, and I believe that, unless my Amendment is adopted, the Board of Admiralty will before long find out they have made a great mistake.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone has furnished us with an excellent argument in favour of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, for he said in his speech the same thing would occur at the end of five years. Now, we consider this expenditure wasteful, and in excess of the requirements of the country. The noble Lord the Member

  1921
  for Marylebone seems to be able to make the Government do pretty well what he likes in naval matters, and it is very clear at the end of that period he will come forward and say, "I want another £5,000,000 or £10,000,000." It seems to me, therefore, that it is better to spread the payment over a much longer period. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend did not say twenty years instead of six years. As he has proposed to increase the period to six years I shall support his Amendment.
  *SIR D. CURRIE: I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary to have these ships completed as soon as possible, and I hope the Government will insist upon pressing them forward without delay in the interests of the security of the Empire.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
  Clause 2.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I rise, Sir, to move on this Clause, in line 26, to leave out from "of," to the second "the," in line 27, and insert "moneys to be provided by Parliament for this purpose." This Amendment I at once frankly admit embraces the other Amendments on the Paper in my name, and I submit to the House that the debate should take place upon this Amendment, and not upon the subsequent Amendments. By this Amendment I am not going to raise the question of the policy of the Government, which I think the Committee has accepted. I am not considering the proposal to spend 21½millions to carry out the Government scheme. I do not interfere with their proposal that 10 millions should be for contract vessels, and 11½ millions for dockyard vessels. I do not interfere with the special desire of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that he should not be hampered by surrendering balances of the end of the year. The noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) pointed out that the surrender of these balances interferes very much with the continuity of policy. My Amendment interferes with none of these things. It leaves the £21,500,000—the £10,000,000 for contract vessels and £11,500,000 for Dockyard vessels—and it leaves money voted for the purposes of naval defence, so that it cannot
  1922
  be diverted at the end of the year from the purposes for which it was voted. My Amendment leaves every one of these things untouched. What, then, is the nature of the difference between myself and the Government? The difference is this: that instead of this money being for the first time in our history charged upon the Consolidated Fund, which means its withdrawal from the annual control of Parliament, it shall year by year be voted by Parliament. The words of my Amendment are, "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament"—a phrase which the Government know, as well as I do, is invariably used in reference to public expenditure. When Parliament contemplates a future expenditure, Parliament has invariably up to this time stated that it shall be "out of moneys provided by Parliament." There are only two reasons that can be urged against this. The first is—and I fully admit the great weight of it—that the noble Lord does not wish to be hampered in his work by surrendering money which is actually needed for naval purposes—which is being really spent on naval purposes—but which, owing to a technicality, he is unable to apply to naval purposes. By Clause 2, a naval account is to be opened, and money voted for shipbuilding out of the annual Estimates is to be carried to that fund, and whatever proportion the House of Commons thinks fit to vote out of that ten millions I propose should also go to that fund. There would be no possibility of surrendering balances were my Amendment adopted. You are afraid of the House of Commons interfering with the policy of shipbuilding. That is exactly the argument by which I wish to stand or fall. I say as a historic fact—and no one contradicted me the other night when I said it—that the House of Commons has never yet refused any expenditure for naval purposes which the Government of the day have come to the Table and said they desired, and I do not believe for a moment that the House of Commons will do so. But surely there is something more—namely, that the House of Commons should retain its control over the expenditure of the country; but to take it away, even in respect of our apparently desirable or apparently good purpose, would

  1923
  establish a precedent for many mischievous purposes which would hereafter follow. If you vote a Naval Defence Budget, why not vote a Military Budget. We have heard some utterances on military matters which ought to arouse our protest; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has already alluded in this letter to what I call the unconstitutional and unprecedented conduct of the Adjutant General of the Army. That, however, is a matter which I will not go into, because it is my intention, and the intention of many more of this House, to raise the question of that noble Lord's action when his salary comes before the House. As a member of this House pointed out to me, there "is the possibility of a Radical Government coming into power; and if this precedent is allowed to pass, what is there to prevent you Radicals voting a prospective Budget that you may effect a series of revolutionary schemes?" I do not attach much weight to the observation myself; but what I want to point out is this: that the House of Commons has not even for fortifications, not even for extensions of dockyards, parted with its control over the annual expenditure of the country. I am not wishing to impede, delay, or maim the scheme of the Government at this moment by this Amendment; I am simply asking the House to adhere to what has been its invariable practice, and I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, who I know is a cautious and experienced politician, to consider whether these mischievous precedents which are being established, and which do not appear so mischievous when used for the purposes of the present Administration, may not be used by some other Administration some other day, for some other purpose which may not appear so desirable as this does. I mentioned the other night that it is the hard cases which make the law; it is these dangerous precedents for desirable objects which open the door, and once the door is opened you cannot tell what may follow. I therefore ask the Government and the House not to give a Party consideration to this question of retaining annual control of the expenditure of the country, but to guard that control, which exclusively belongs to this House, from inter-
  1924
  ference by any other branch of the Legislature.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I admit at once that any Amendment coming from the right hon. Gentleman is well worthy of the attention of the Committee, and any suggestion which he may make, that would not interfere with the operation of the Bill and which would avert dangerous precedents, is well worthy of consideration. Now, I heard the right hon. Gentleman, with great ingenuity and skill of argument, put this case the other night, and he was very strong on precedent, and he quoted a number of Acts of Parliament to show how our conduct was absolutely unprecedented, but like an adroit advocate, he omitted one Act of Parliament—an Act of Parliament which bears on this point. In the year 1872, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was in power, he was fortunate enough to be in receipt of a revenue, which, to use his own words, was advancing by leaps and bounds. And in that year it was necessary to incur a certain expenditure in connection with the Army for the purpose of localizing the military forces, and completing certain barracks, and the amount he proposed to spend was £3,500,000. What does the right hon. Gentleman then propose? He did not cite that as a precedent which he intends to follow, or which ought to be followed. On the contrary, he thinks it a most mischievous and dangerous precedent. The then Government proposed to raise this sum of £3,500,000 by payments out of the Consolidated Fund. In that sense their proposal was similar to ours. We, however, put on taxation for the purpose of repaying the sum raised, while the Government of 1872 took off taxation, and the worst part of the proposal was that the money was put upon the Consolidated Fund not because the revenue of the year would not bear it, but simply for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian to present a popularity Budget. The sum which he took off taxation was £4,000,000, nearly £500,000 in excess of the sum he put upon the Consolidated Fund. Yet it was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it has never yet been proposed that any Military Budget

  1925
  should be voted in advance or spread over a number of years, or paid out of the Consolidated Fund. So far as precedent is concerned the Government have a distinct precedent for what they are doing, with the exception that the Government have taken out of their action all that was dangerous in the proposals of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and we believe we have made a proposal which is in every sense safe and business-like. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment seems to suppose that the only object of the Government is to escape from the interference of Parliament, of which we are afraid. I will say at once that the Government are not afraid of the interference of the House of Commons. It is perfectly true that the House of Commons has never refused money to the Government which has made out a case for it, but there are other considerations which must weigh with the Committee as men of business. It has been determined by the House of Commons in repeated majorities that a certain number of ships shall be built in a certain time, and a considerable portion of the ships must be armoured ships. The main cost of the armoured ships must come in the second year when the armourplates are fixed, and I defy the ingenuity of man to equalize the expenditure over each year. I will take a past case of which the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh has some knowledge. Lord Northbrook proposed to spend a certain sum on a special programme, and made financial arrangements which the Government enunciated in the House. His proposal was to raise £800,000 in the first year, £800,000 in the second year, and £500,000 in each of the remaining years until the expenditure was met. That arrangement was made after careful calculation, and was the best estimate the Government could make, but the whole thing fell to pieces. The actual expenditure was £1,066,000 in the first year, £1,350,000 in the second year, £813,000 in the third year, and £300,000 in the fourth year. The Committee will there see that, although dealing with a smaller sum than the present, the financial provision was altogether out of accord with the expenditure of those years. The Government have placed on the Table of the House an estimate showing
  1926
  the probable expenditure on contract ships—namely, in the first year, £2,850,000, second year £4,450,000, and third year £1,900,000. If this expenditure were included in the annual Estimates, see what fluctuations of taxation it would necessarily involve. Those fluctuations are most mischievous to trade. I contend that both from the business point of view and from that of the taxpayer the proposal made by my right hon. Friend is a right one—namely, to spread the payment over seven years, although the expenditure is actually incurred within five. The right hon. Gentleman objects to this money being put on the Consolidated Fund because he says it will take away the control of Parliament over the expenditure. For my own part, however, I contend that if the House authorize the expenditure and the Government enter into contracts on the faith of it, the House is not either legally or morally competent to repudiate the liability so incurred. If such a policy were adopted it would be absolutely ruinous to the economical administration of the Admiralty, for, of course, contractors would demand a higher price to cover the risk of repudiation. It is, therefore, absolutley immaterial whether the money is put upon the Consolidated Fund or voted annually by the House. I quite agree, however, that the expenditure on the Navy should be within the cognizance of the House, and to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, I will undertake to lay before the House each year precisely the same statements as to contract ships as are made with regard to Dockyard ships. I believe that by adopting that course the House will practically have just as much control over the expenditure as if it were included in the Estimates. I think I have shown three things—first, that we are not establishing a dangerous precedent, but have whittled down a dangerous precedent; next, that our proposals are in themselves businesslike and have not omitted the interest of the taxpayer; and lastly, that they do not unduly interfere with what I contend everybody should try to maintain—the annual control of the House over all the expenditure associated with it.
  *MR. CHILDERS: I am called upon by the noble Lord the

  1927
  First Lord of the Admiralty to offer to the Committee a few remarks in reply to his reference to what Lord Northbrook proposed in 1885. He said that Lord Northbrook had laid before Parliament a scheme for spending £800,000 and £500,000 upon shipbuilding in three successive years. He then stated that sums very much in excess of Lord Northbrook's estimates — £1,066,000, £1,350,000 and £813,000—were expended in those three years, and the noble Lord said that in consequence of of the inconvenience caused by these excesses, he did not propose to follow the plan of coming to Parliament each year, but would make this a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. It is true that under Lord Northbrook's plan the expenditure on ships in two years was a quarter of a million and half a million more than the original Estimate But why was this? Why, the noble Lord took great credit for the fact two years ago, when he said that he had expedited the expenditure under Lord Northbrook's scheme. It was because he had deliberately accelerated the rate of building that the excess had occurred. No inconvenience whatever had resulted, so far as Parliamentary proceeding was concerned. The Votes had not been been disturbed, but on the contrary, we on this side of the House entirely approved of the action of Government in spreading over three years only what had been intended to be spent in five. But let me ask this question, if this new principle of forming a fund to spread equally over a series of years, and that exceeding the time of construction, and the cost of the ships built by contract in private yards, ought it not to apply to ships built in in the Dockyards? In that case also the cost of a particular ship will always be far greater in the second than in the first and third years. Moreover, the question is one which affects the annual control of Parliament over the whole of our naval building expenditure, and a large amount of our military expenditure, and if the arguments for the charge be sound we shall probably be asked, as has been urged abroad, to Vote Supplies for two or three years instead of one, and then the control of this House over the annual expenditure will be lost. The noble Lord also spoke of the precedent of 1872. It is true that in that
  1928
  one case Parliament was asked to make a certain charge on the Consolidated Fund for a Military expenditure, repaying it in, I think, 21 years. But that was not for perishable articles like ships; it was for the building of permanent barracks which will last 100 years. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two classes of expenditure. What I want the noble Lord to say is whether, if he thinks that is a good rule for ships built by contract, it is, in his e pinion, also a good rule for other classes of expenditure in connection with the Army and Navy. I want to knowhow he can draw a distinction between ships built by contract and ships, built in the Dockyards in respect of his manner of financial provision. Hitherto the Constitutional principle, as to which both sides of the House have agreed, that the ordinary expenditure on the Army and Navy should be voted year by year; has been jealously protected, and I fear the worst consequences from its being so lightly set aside.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELL: I feel bound to protest against the proposal that the Army expenditure should be taken in a different manner from that of the Navy. I think there is a great deal of money wasted in the Army by voting it from year to year; but as I do not wish to detain the House, I will only say that I think both Services stand on the same footing; they are the insurance of the country, and if that insurance is not sufficient it is our duty to make it so without delay.
  *SDI W. BARTTELOT: I wish to say a word as to the Army Organization Scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) will recollect that the £3,500,000 voted in 1872 for the building of barracks when Lord Cardwell, then Mr. Cardwell, was Secretary of State for War was not accounted for annually to the House of Commons.
  *MR. CHILDERS: An account in. detail was laid before the House every year, and precise information was given in the Military Estimates on the subject.
  *SIR W. BARTTELOT: In those, Estimates there was no account whatever, and when asked for it was not forthcoming for the particular time stated. I do not say it was not given afterwards; but it was absolutely at the

  1929
  option of the Ministers of the day to use the money as they thought fit for each year. I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the intention of the Government of the day with respect to the £8,000,000 for the Suez Canal? The money was to be spread over a long term of years for the benefit of a foreign company to be paid off not annually, but by certain instalments extending over a series of years.
  *MR. CHILDERS: The money was to be lent to the Suez Canal Company in the same way as other loans are made by the Government. It was not a question of money being included in the Estimates inasmuch as it was not to be expended by any Department of the Government.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I should like to ask the noble Lord and Gentleman this. If he looks at the Return lately published he will see it stated that we are as strong in ships of war as the four Navies of France, Russia, Germany and Italy. I want to know whether we are to take that Return as as correct?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Baronet must recollect that we are talking of the necessity of maintaining in the future our supremacy at sea for the protection of this country and of its commerce, and, therefore, we say it is necessary that we should have a much larger proportion of cruisers and line of battle ships than we now have.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I must repeat my question whether we are to take the Return to which I have referred as accurate?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Perfectly.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and it is to omit from line 29 the word "seventh" and insert the word "fifth." The effect of this Amendment will be to confine the granting of the money to the exact time within which the expenditure would take place. I am not going to raise again the Constitutional and financial points dealt with by my right hon. Friends near me. The First Lord of the Admiralty has used the argument that there is con-
  1930
  siderable difficulty in equalizing the payments of the several years, which no doubt, according to the Government proposals, would be the case, because they intend in one year to commence a large number of vessels, and will have in the second year a larger amount of expenditure than in the first, as the most expensive part of the process is performed in the second year. Had the Government chosen to have pursued a more systematic course, and to have laid down one or two ironclads last year, and the year before, and so gone on after having thus paved the way, instead of starting in this spasmodic way by at once laying down a large number of vessels, the payments which have equalized themselves; but as it is, I admit there is something to be said, from the point of view of administrative convenience, in favour of the scheme, which enables the Government to avoid coming to Parliament for a larger sum of money in some years than in others. But the whole of the work is to be done in five years; why, then, should any part of the expenditure be spread over seven? Why should not the whole of the money he provided for the years in which the expenditure takes place? I have heard no argument used by the Government in support of their proposal in this respect. A proposal had been made to extend the time; but the Government would not hear of that; they would have the ships finished in five years. But why extend the expenture over seven years? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think the country so lukewarm in the matter, or the resources of the country so few, that he has to spread the payments over seven years? I think it would require some strong and pressing argument to induce the House to grant what is proposed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I think, missed the point as to the loan for barracks, in 1872. Hitherto we have been accustomed to loans for definite and tangible permanent work, such as building fortifications and baracks; and last year, when we provided for the Australian ships, was the first occasion on which a loan was resorted to, within recent years, for a transitory and perishable service. That exception is now extended by the Government and all I wish to do in this Amendment is to secure that, whatever financial irregularities

  1931
  we are being led into under the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should, at least, be able to say that the effort we are called upon to make is not so great that we cannot discharge our liabilities within the term within which the expenditure is to be incurred.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "seventh," and insert "fifth: "—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman).
  Question proposed "That 'seventh' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. GOSCHEN: We are not prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. While Her Majesty's Government do not believe the country to be lukewarm with regard to this measure, I am glad also to see that, whilst the right hon. Gentleman is not lukewarm, there is not that violent opposition to this scheme which at one time we had been led to anticipate. We should have had no difficulty in proposing this measure in any form, but we have had to consider what is the best and fairest method of meeting the payments. In this effort we are both making up for arrears and forestalling the efforts of the future. We find that at this particular moment it is necessary for many reasons, which have been explained at various times, to bring up the strength of our naval forces. It is an exceptional effort we are making, and we think it right to deal with it as an exceptional effort, believing that little blame would be attached to the Government if they had said the payment should be spread over ten years instead of seven. We think we have gone far to meet the general anxiety that every generation should pay its fair share by saying that the whole of this exceptional and abnormal effort should be paid for in seven years. What generation will most benefit from our exertions? Not the taxpayers of the next three or four years, during which the ships will be in course of construction, but those of the sixth and seventh and subsequent years when this large force will have been added to the Navy. Doubtless, hon. Gentlemen are right in saying that perishable Services can scarcely be treated in the same way as permanent ones, but though these ships will not be as permanent as fortifications, they will be more permanent than the ships of the past.
  *LORD C. BERESFORD: I cannot understand why on earth the Government want to extend the payments over seven years when they are going to build the ships in five years. Although I do not want to vote against the Government, I am afraid I shall have to vote for the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said this addition to the Fleet will be a permanent one. I distinctly controvert that, and will endeavour to prove that I am in the right, feeling sure that as time goes on I shall be found to be in the right, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the wrung. It is for this reason I shall have to go into the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. One hon. Member referred to the question of barrack accommodation, and said the borrowing of money for providing that was justifiable because the barracks were permanent fixtures. So too, I say, ought the Fleet to be permanent; you ought to get it up to a given standard, and take care that steps are taken every year to replace ships which have become obsolete. We have been told that ironclads only last a given number of years. Why, they bear no comparison with the old style of ship. The Victory, when she fought the battle of Trafalgar, was 45 years old, and she was 75 years old when she was put out of commission The right hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right when he said that we ought to have gone on building ironclads every year. No doing so is one reason why we have to build a large number now to bring the Fleet up to its proper strength. We ought also to allow for wastage, and the 20 millions ought to be in addition to the ordinary wastage of the Fleet. If you do not do this, why in a few years' time you will have another exceptional expenditure to replace those ships which, in a year or two, will have become obsolete. I intend to vote against the Government.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: My noble Friend is going to vote against the Government because they do not want to vote two millions a year instead of one million and a-half. But I thought my noble Friend wanted to borrow the money for the whole expenditure and suspend the Sinking Fund, and yet he is going to vote against us for spreading the payment of this money over seven years instead of five.
  *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us we are to spread this money over seven years, instead of paying our way as we go on. I fail to see why the unhappy taxpayers of seven years hence should have this burden put on them. We ought to pay for putting the Navy in a proper condition. We have been told that we shall have a period of rest after this money has been spent. I do not in the least believe it. We have already been warned we shall have another scare in due course, and we have also been informed that a large expenditure will be required for the Army, so that the taxpayer of six and seven years' hence will have quite enough to do to meet fresh abnormal and exceptional expenditure. Then the Prime Minister, speaking in the West Country, recently told us of the terrible danger we may run of invasion from Ireland. I do hope that my right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, who, I fear, somewhat deserve the taunt thrown out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they are lukewarm in their opposition to this monstrous and unnecessary proposal, will take courage from the promise of support given by the noble Lord opposite, and go to a division on this point, which is a very plain one, and which the country will understand, and that we may not again see what we have seen more than once in the past—a Conservative Government spending the money, and leaving a Liberal Government to pay it.
  MR. CRAIG: Before this Vote is taken, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what is meant by the difference of £3,054,000 between the sum available to new construction (£11,554,000) and the sum required to complete the new programme (£11,500,000.)
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: Anybody acquainted with our Dockyards would understand the importance of not allowing the work to stand still. We propose to allot a certain amount of money to complete a given number of ships, and then as the programme is completed, the money may be used for additions, or it may be saved. At any rate, it becomes free.
  MR. CRAIG: In what sense?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: In the sense that there are no liabilities to meet. If
  1934
  the present Government are still in office, I have no doubt the money will be devoted to new construction, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite are in a majority, and if the views they express to-night still prevail, the 3 millions will be available for the reduction of the Estimates.
  MR. CRAIG: Then it comes to this, that the Government are asking us to grant £3,054,000, which is not yet allocated on the new programme. Why should we vote money to be used in 1893–94 for laying down vessels if the Government of the day choose so to spend the money?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The money is to be devoted to new construction, and when the new programme is completed there will be a surplus of £3,054,000, which will be dealt with as the House likes. We do not ask the House to come to any decision on that.
  MR. CRAIG: Then why ask the House to vote the money now?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The money will not be used now. There is no clause in the Bill in which this is asked for.
  *MR. CHILDERS: I wish to put one question, which directly bears on the policy of this system of advance for naval and military purposes. Two months ago the House was informed that there would be another large sum to be borrowed, I believe some five or six millions for barrack accommodation. I should like to know whether the Government have yet decided to ask the House for authority to make this advance also?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: That is a totally different matter. The Secretary for War says that he would have to make certain proposals which were to be submitted to a Committee of the House of Commons.
  *MR. CHILDERS: I thought the inquiry took place last year?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; the proposals are to be referred to a Committee for inquiry. They are in an entirely inchoate state at the present time. I think it is not desirable to mix up the discussion of this matter with the Bill now before the House.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should like to refer again to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle. It is evident that on the

  1935
  completion of the new programme we shall have three millions unappropriated, and which will be at the disposal of Parliament either to spend or to save. But at that time Parliament will have to meet two years' payment of the funded charges, created by this Bill, for expenditure already incurred. I do not consider it a very satisfactory arrangement that you should have arrears on one account, and at the same time an actual saving on the other.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: It seems to me that it is a charming argument for the Bill, as we shall have means to pay at the very time the money has to be paid.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 99.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (financial arrangements for Dockyard work), with a verbal Amendment, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (restrictions on application of money issued) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (preparation and audit of accounts under the Act) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (supplemental provisions) agreed to.
  On Clause 7 (definitions),
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I beg to move to add:—
  "The expression 'money expended' will include the value of stores issued from stock and used in tho construction or completion of the vessels built under this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  New Clause.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: The object of my clause is simply to follow the precedent which the noble Lord in his speech earlier in the evening stated that he was willing to follow—namely, that of giving to Parliament every information with reference to these contracts. I wish Parliament to have laid before it every year the contracts which the Admiralty enter into by virtue of this Act. It may be said that the contracts will be very voluminous in their specifications, and may contain details which it is not desirable should be known to other contractors. I would therefore be content to take a summary of every contract, and to alter the period of 30 days to any longer period which the
  1936
  Government think necessary in the interest of the public service.
  New Clause.
  "A copy of every contract entered into by virtue of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within thirty days after the same is entered into, if Parliament is then sitting; and, if not, then within fifteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I quite agree with the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the clause, even if amended as suggested, goes a little further than the right hon. Gentleman wishes. It would run "a summary of every contract entered into by virtue of this Act." I would suggest we should say "a summary of every contract entered into by virtue of this Act for the construction of the vessels should be laid before both Houses of Parliament," and I would say "90 days" instead of "30," and "30" instead of "15."
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: Would you say "construction and arming of the vessels"?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No; there are a number of small contracts that it would not be necessary to enter into. Vessels and guns" will be sufficient.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I would suggest it would be convenient to bring the matter up on Report to-morrow. The particular phraseology of the clause ought to be very carefully considered. The Government wish to give the country complete information; but I think it would be more satisfactory if the matter were properly considered, and if a clause relating to it were brought up on the Report.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and on the understanding that the Government will bring up a new clause to-morrow, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of he Bill."
  COLONEL NOLAN: It strikes me as extraordinary you should put in the schedule of a Bill that is to

  1937
  last five years the number of quick-firing guns. We may have all sorts of inventions in the meanwhile, and the number and pattern of those guns may have to be totally modified. It is proposed we should tie our hands for five years, that the Admiralty should not be able to make any change in such a small matter as small guns without an Act of Parliament.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has omitted to observe that the word "approximate" occurs in the Schedule.
  MR. DUFF: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I think it would be very rash to tie ourselves down to the exact form of guns when we know the rapid development of quick firing guns. In this matter I should like to give the Admiralty a little more liberty. We have already suffered very much by tying ourselves to the 110-ton gun, and therefore I think it would be wise to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, and cut out of the Schedule the reference to the number of small guns.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The object of the Schedule is to give as much information as possible to the House. The hon. Gentleman says it is a great mistake for the Admiralty to tie themselves down to a particular form of gun. I think it is a greater mistake to build ships without knowing what guns we are to put in them.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Would it not be well to leave out of the Schedule the numbers of all guns under six-inch?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: If it is the wish of the Committee to leave out part of the Schedule, I would not object, but I cannot leave out all under six-inch guns.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill" has been proposed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The noble Lord may strike out the words on the Report.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will make a proposal on Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
  MR. ISAACSON: I should like to know what the Government intend to do with regard to the armour-plating.
  1938
  There are only two firms in England which can compete for contracts for the armour-plating, and we are entirely at the mercy of those two firms. Indeed, I am convinced that if we manufactured the armour-plating ourselves we should effect a saving of £1,500,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member has neglected the proper opportunity for raising this question. He may no doubt ask a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he cannot discuss anything at this point.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolutions [10th May] reported; [see pages 1712–1750.]

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS II.
  First Resolution read a second time.
  MR. CHANNING: I put on the Paper the Amendment to reduce the salary of the President of the Local Goverment Board by £100, in order to call the attention of the House to the question which I raised on Friday—namely, the vaccination of workhouse children within a week of their birth. I drew attention fully to the question on Friday, and I only desire now to refer briefly to the main points raised then and to ask the House to divide upon the question. I pointed out that children have been vaccinated in workhouses within two or three days of their birth, and the President of the Local Government Board declined to interfere with the rule regarding the matter laid down by the Boards of Guardians, chiefly in the metropolis and in some of the large towns. He also said the Local Government Board was not responsible for the practice and had no power to do away with it. That I venture to contest. There was issued a circular letter, signed by Mr. Lambert, the Secretary of the Local Government Board, in 1881, distinctly approving at that time of the practice of vaccinating children thus early, and the Act of 1874 gives full power to the Board to make such orders as to vaccination as may seem to them proper. I, therefore, contend that the Local Government

  1939
  Board has perfect power to deal with this question and to issue an order to the Boards of Guardians throughout the country pointing out the undesirability of vaccinating children at a very early age, and asking them to alter their practice in the matter. The justification for this practice is, of course, that in a workhouse you may have started an epidemic of small-pox by the young children being left unvaccinated, but as I pointed out the other day there is also the danger of an epidemic of erysipelas in a workhouse, which may spread throughout the institution. I submit that the practice is utterly inconsistent with the very principle of the Vaccination Act. The principle of the Act is that a parent is not compelled to have a child vaccinated until the third month. To talk of the consent of the parent being given in such cases is simply ridiculous. There is no possibility of comparing such cases with the cases in which regular and formal legal notices are sent under the vaccination laws. We know perfectly well that the unfortunate women who are confined in workhouses are practically compelled to have their children vaccinated within a very few days of birth. The President of the Local Government Board admitted the other afternoon that there was no statutory authority for enforcing vaccination thus early, that such vaccination would be a distinctly illegal act if formal consent were not given by the parent. It is absurd to say that any doctor can determine whether a child is in a fit state for vaccination at such an early age, before the child has had any start in life, before any opportunity has been afforded of seeing whether there is any disease in the child which wholly unfits the child for vaccination. I hope the President of the Local Government Board, who on Friday met what I had to say on this subject in no unconciliatory spirit, will see his way to use whatever power he has with the Boards of Guardians to put an end to this practice, and, at any rate, to postpone the vaccination of children born in workhouses to, say, a month or two months after the birth of the child. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, "to leave out £133,823,' and insert '£133,723'"—(Mr. Channing)—instead thereof.
  1940
  Question proposed, "That '£133,823' stand part of the Resolution."
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): The hon. Gentleman has made exactly the same speech he made last Friday to which I then gave a detailed reply, and as I imagine the only object the hon. Gentleman has is to take the opportunity he missed on Friday of moving a reduction of my salary, I do not think it is necessary for me to say more than that the Local Government Board have no power to interfere with the action of the Guardians. But these children are usually illegitimate and are taken away from the workhouse soon after their birth, and therefore it is clearly in the interest of the child that vaccination should be performed so early that the sore is healed before the child is taken away. Many accidents occur after children leave the workhouse, and if the arm were illtreated a good deal of trouble might ensue. It is mainly with a desire of seeing that the child is well and that the sore is properly healed before it leaves the workhouse that vaccination is performed early, but the authorities receive strict instructions that no vaccination is to be performed unless the consent of the mother has been obtained.
  The House divided;—Ayes 212; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 109.)
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to call attention to a matter in respect of which I asked a question the other day, and unless I receive from the President of the Local Government Board now a more sympathetic reply than I did then, I shall feel it my duty to take the sense of the House on the subject. The Local Government Board have an Inspectorate of 25 persons, and of the whole staff of Inspectors only one is a lady. Now, when it is considered that considerably more than half the inmates of workhouses are women and children, this disproportion must be allowed as grossly unfair. During last year a Committee of the other House examined the question of Poor Law Relief, and took a considerable body of evidence on the

  1941
  subject, some portion of that evidence relating to the matter I am now bringing before the House. I would particularly invite attention to the evidence of Miss Twining, a member, I believe, of the Kensington Board of Guardians. She was asked:
  "We understand you advocate the extension of a system of lady Inspectors generally, in connection with workhouse administration?
  Miss Twining replied:
  "I do most earnestly desire it. I think it is our one great object just now. When Mrs Nassau Senior was appointed in 1874 I had the honour of being consulted about it by the then President of the Local Government Board. That appointment was a great success. A complete change was made in the ideas of treatment of children and the sick. We have had to remove some nurses from the impossible conditions under which they did their duty. One nurse had to cook her rations in the same saucepan in which she cooked for the sick. Others, again, had to cook in the wards or their own sitting room, and we had to remove those who could not put up with the difficulties."
  Miss Twining further said—
  "If the Master goes round with the Inspector, and very often that official does so, the nurses have not the courage to explain their wants as they would do to a woman."
  The evidence of Miss Twining and other evidence, among which I may allude to that of Miss Mason, pointing to the same conclusion, seems to have produced considerable effect upon the Committee of the other House, an influential Committee as a reference to the names will show, and they made a recommendation that, believing great advantage had been derived from the appointment of a lady Inspector, there should be further extension of such appointments to secure more competent inspection of the female and children's wards in workhouses, and of the staff of nurses and other female officials. As I said just now, when I put a question to the President of the Local Government Board, I did not receive much sympathy from him. The right hon. Gentleman agreed it was very desirable that ladies should be members of Boards of Guardians, but I think it is equally desirable that ladies should be appointed as paid Inspectors of the Local Government Board. I suppose the objection that mainly weighs with the right hon. Gentleman is the expense. Of course this is an important matter, but I should not desire the Board to launch out at once
  1942
  into any very great expenditure. All I desire is to secure from the right hon. Gentleman to-night some expression of sympathy with the object I have in view, and some declaration of an intention to carry out that object as occasion may arise. What I would suggest is that instead of having all male Inspectors we should have some lady Inspectors, and by the substitution of the one for the other no additional expense would be incurred.[Interruption.] Some Members of the House seem rather disposed to make light of this question, which to my mind is a matter of great gravity. Depend upon it, the women and children who are occupants of workhouses would not regard it in that light spirit displayed by some hon. Gentleman below the gangway opposite. It is to them a matter of almost vital importance that they should have one of their own sex entrusted with the duty of inspection, and coming round from time to time to see if everything is right, instead of having the present system of male inspection only. I should be quite willing to take from the right hon. Gentleman a small instalment to night. I hope he will promise that when an Inspector's place becomes vacant on the next occasion he will appoint a lady Inspector, and then I will not further press the matter. But for the present I beg to move the reduction by £100 of which I have given notice.
  *THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot do that. The House has decided that the amount proposed shall stand part of the Resolution.
  MR. RITCHIE: Although the hon. Member cannot move the reduction I should be sorry to leave his appeal unanswered. The hon. Member proposes there should be an increase of lady Inspectors. To accomplish that one of two things would have to be done, looking to the fact that the whole of England is divided into districts, you must duplicate the number of Inspectors or you must substitute women for men, and this last I understand is the hon. Member's proposal with a view to meeting the difficulty of increased expense. My own opinion is that if the remedy proposed removed a grievance which the hon. Member says exists, but of which we at the Local Government Board have not

  1943
  heard, it would create another and an infinitely greater grievance for to say that a woman could perform all the manifold duties now performed by the male Inspectors of the Poor Law Board is, with all respect to the hon. Member, a little more than the Committee will accept from him. The hon. Member really cannot know the variety of the duties Inspectors have to perform not only in connection with the workhouse itself, but on interviewing the Guardians and on many matters of Poor Law administration, and to say that these can be as well performed by a woman as by a man is more than I can believe. The hon. Gentleman asks me to give an expression of sympathy with his object, and that I do most entirely, but the object can be achieved without expense to the country by lady members going on the Boards of Guardians. We have many cases of that already, and members of the Boards of Guardians are at perfect liberty to go to the workhouse and make all inquiries they desire. But when the hon. Member asks me to promise that when a vacancy occurs I will appoint a woman instead of a man, that I must absolutely decline to do, for I am quite sure that the administration would suffer materially. The hon. Member alludes to the inquiry into Poor Law administration by a Committee of the other House, and it is quite true they did make a recommendation of the character referred to, but I will venture to say that recommendation was supported by very scanty evidence. The hon. Member has referred to a vast quantity of evidence taken, and much evidence was taken, but upon this particular point the evidence was confined to that of Miss Twining, so I am not wrong in saying the evidence was extremely scanty, and I think the Committee had much more in mind, the inspection of boarded-out children, than of replacing male by female Inspectors, and as to this I can make no promise.
  *MR. M'LAREN: As in other matters, the expression of the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy does not promise an improvement in the matter complained of. The point my hon. Friend desired to raise was not that female Inspectors should be appointed to do all the duties of male Inspectors; all we ask is that there should be lady Inspectors for the
  1944
  female sides of workhouses and infirmaries, and this change would mean much less than a duplication of the staff. For these duties, not undertaking those for which men are specially fitted, a few ladies could cover large areas. Miss Mason, who, I think, was appointed in 1885 to the inspection of boarded-out children, said in her evidence that she had some 1,300 or 1,400 boarded-out children under her inspection over the whole of England and Wales. This lady has to cover a large area of inspection, and so it might be if the recommendation of the Lords Committee were acted upon. From the evidence of Miss Twining, as well as from knowledge acquired from ladies who are Poor Law Guardians, I can say that not only do the female inmates regard this as exceedingly desirable, but the Guardians themselves would welcome the change. I would emphasize that point in Miss Twining's evidence in reference to the appointment of Mrs. Nassau Senior. This lady looked after workhouse schools for a year. and it was decided by the authorities that at the end of the year the appointment should include the general inspection of workhouses, but before the expiration of the year that lady's health broke down and she died. Now, if Mrs. Nassau Senior had not died, she would have been appointed to the very office we suggest a lady Inspector should fill; therefore, to say that the Department can hold out no hope of this being done is to lose sight of the fact that such an appointment was about to be made by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. If Mrs. Nassau Senior had lived the appointment would have been made, and there would be no reason to raise this point now. In her evidence before the Committee, Miss Twining explains that her idea is that women should do the work of inspection as regards the clothing management and domestic economy of the female side of the workhouse wards. It cannot be doubted that such inspection would be an advantage. My wife has been a Poor Law Guardian, and she has described to me how absurd it is to send a male Inspector round the female wards for the inspection of clothing, bedclothes, utensils, &c. It is absurd and scandalous, too. Miss Twining was asked if such inspection would be

  1945
  of any assistance to the matron, and she replied that the good ones would welcome such a charge, though of course the bad ones would not welcome lady Inspectors or lady Guardians either, and that Mrs. Nassau, Senior, was loved and respected by all she came in contact with. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to reconsider his decision. We do not want any great expenditure; we shall be perfectly satisfied with the appointment of one lady Inspector to go round and visit the female wards of all workhouses. It will be a great work to do, and will take much time, but it would be attended with great advantage to the inmates, for there are many matters that must escape the attention of the male Inspector.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Speaking as Chairman of a Board of Guardians, I must say I think this proposition most practical. I do not think the work of inspecting the female side of our workhouses is at the present time done as efficiently as that of inspecting the male side. You should have one lady Inspector who would devote herself solely to the females' and children's part of the workhouse, leaving the general sanitary portion of the workhouse to the male Inspector. Furthermore, the female Inspector would be able to keep the female matrons in order. The right hon. gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might well consider this matter, and see if he could not appoint at least one female Inspector for the whole Kingdom.
  The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes, 64:—(Division List, No. 110.)
  Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution read a second time.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to move the reduction of this Vote by £3,000. There are six Inspectors in lunacy in England paid £1,500 a year each, and only two in Scotland paid £1,000 a year each, or 50 per cent less than the English. Seeing that the Scotch Inspectors are superior in their knowledge of the question to the English Inspectors, I desire to reduce the salaries of the latter to the level of those of the former.
  1946
  Amendment proposed, "to leave out '£13,215,' and insert '£10,215'"—(Dr. Clark)—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That £13,215 stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 46.—(Div. List, No. 111.) Resolution agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES [COSTS].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the costs incurred, and of the remuneration of the officer employed, in any local inquiry which may be held under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Weights and Measures."
  Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL DEBT BILL. (No. 219.)
SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading, read.
*MR. GOSCHEN: As this is really part of the Budget proposals, and the subject was discussed in the debate earlier in the evening, I think it will be for the public convenience that it be read a second time now.
Question, "That this Bill be read a second time," put and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 16.)
Considered in Committee, and reported, as amended to be committed upon Thursday.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL. (No. 64.)
Order for the Second Reading, read and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

TEMPORARY DWELLINGS BILL. (No. 206.)
MR. BURT: I hope the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time now.
Question, "That this Bill be read a second time," put and agreed to.
Bill read second time and committed for Thursday.

SUGAR CONVENTION BILL. (No. 194.)
Question put," That the second reading of the Sugar Conventions Bill be deferred till the 20th of June."
MR. T. M. HEALY: I should think that some notice ought to be given of the proposal. I think it might stand till to-morrow.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): This Motion is made in accordance with what my right hon.
1948
Friend stated this evening, that the Bill would not be taken before Whitsuntide.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to know what is the exact period after Whitsuntide to which it is proposed to be postponed.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Till the 20th of June.
Question again put, and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock.